jpc wp8656-11.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8656 OF 2011 Dadadasaheb Baburao Chavan and others ... Petitioners Versus Namdeo Parasharam Chavan and others ... Respondents Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad for the Petitioners CORAM: R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : 16th November, 2011 P.C. : 1. The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 19th August, 2011 passed by the learned Extra Joint Ad-hoc District Judge, Satara by which order, the Appeal filed by the Petitioners who are the original Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 came to be dismissed and resultantly, the temporary injunction granted by the trial Court in favour of the Plaintiffs who are Respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein came to be confirmed. 2. There is concurrent finding recorded in respect of the case made out by the Plaintiffs for grant of injunction by both the Courts below. Both jpc wp8656-11.sxw 2 the Courts below have referred to the statements of the Defendants i.e. the Petitioners herein recorded during the implementation of Consolidation Scheme that they had agreed and accepted the allotment of the suit land made in favour of the grandfather of the original Plaintiffs. The Defendants had also given explanation for such allotment in their written statement. Both the Courts below took into consideration the fact that the Consolidation Scheme as proposed was implemented by the Consolidation Officer and accordingly the entries came to be made in the records of right in respect of the suit land. Both the Courts below have held that since the year 1972 i.e for the last more than 35 years, the Defendants have not raised any grievance regarding the Consolidation Scheme and as regards the entries of the names of the Plaintiffs in the revenue record which show that the Plaintiffs are in possession of the suit land for last more than 35 years. Both the Courts below, therefore reached the conclusion that apart from the prima facie case made out by he plaintiff, on the basis of the material on record that was on record, the balance of convenience is also in favour of the Plaintiffs. 3. The First Appellate Court, in fact has observed that if the Defendants have any grievance as regards the Consolidation Scheme, the jpc wp8656-11.sxw 3 Defendants can move the competent authority under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, for redressal of their grievances. In my view, the findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below whilst granting and confirming the temporary temporary injunction cannot be taken exception to. 4. The grievance was made by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that the Report of the Commissioner who was appointed by the trial Court has not been adverted to by the First Appellate Court whilst deciding the Appeal. In the said context, it is required to be noted that the appointment of the Commissioner and the report submitted by him was assailed by the Defendants i.e. the Petitioners in the Appeal before the First Appellate Court. The said report was assailed on the ground that no notice was issued to the Defendants and that the Commissioner has carried out the commission work without notice to the Defendants. In the context of the said challenge, the First Appellate Court did not take into consideration the said report and has considered the matter independently on the basis of other material which was on record. It is on the basis of the said material which has been referred to in the earlier part of this order that the First Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the Trial Court granting jpc wp8656-11.sxw 4 temporary injunction. In my view, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioners based on the Commissioner's Report cannot be countenanced. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. 5. Looking to the nature of the dispute involved, hearing of the suit is expedited. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)