IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 618 of 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No.717 of 2008 Kamlakar Madhukar Wajage and Anr ..Appellants. V/s. Shankar Vishnu Bhor ..Respondent. Mr U. B. Nighot, Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 17.07.2008. DATED: 17.07.2008. DATED: 17.07.2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 2. Having seen the impugned order dated 1.3.2008 passed by 11th Joint Civil Judge, J.D. Pune and the prima facie findings recorded therein, the view taken by the Court below is a reasonable and possible view. 3. The factual matrix brought on record reveals that there was sale deed executed by the present respondent-original plaintiff in favour of the present appellant. On the very same day, another agreement was executed thereby agreeing to reconvey the property in the event of non-rendering of consideration. Both the documents, if read together, would prima facie ( 2 ) lean in favour of loan transaction. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the document said to be dated 16.3.2006, whereby the earlier agreement to reconvey the property was cancelled. 5. After having seen the document much can be said about the same. However, at this stage, I do not propose to dwell on this document. Suffice it to say that the view taken by the Court below is a reasonable and possible view and cannot be interfered with, especially, in the appeal against the order. 6. It is well settled position that if two views are possible and one reasonable and possible view is taken, the appellate Court is not expected to interfere with the view of the Trial Court (See U.P. U.P. U.P. Co-operative Federation Ltd v. Sunder Bros.,Delhi, Co-operative Federation Ltd v. Sunder Bros.,Delhi, Co-operative Federation Ltd v. Sunder Bros.,Delhi, A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 249. A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 249. A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 249. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The suit be treated as expedited one. 6. In view of disposal of the Appeal, Civil Application No.717 of 2008 does not survive. The same ( 3 ) is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE