(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1665 OF 2011 Basraj Bansi Chavan, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Naiknagar (Savangi), Taluka : Pachora, District : Jalgaon. .. Petitioner. versus 1. Shri Kailash Harsingh Rathod, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Service, R/o. Near Shindi Colony, Jamner Road, Pachora, Taluka : Pachora, District : Jalgaon. 2. Shri Dilip Harsing Rathod, Age : 34 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Service, R/o. Near Shindi Colony, Jamner Road, Pachora, Taluka : Pachora, District : Jalgaon. (2) 3. Sau. Vatsala Tarachand Jadhav, Age : 36 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Near Shindi Colony, Jamner Road, Pachora, Taluka : Pachora, Dist. : Jalgaon (Original Resident of Ambevadgaon, Taluka : Pachora, Dist. : Jalgaon, Today R/o. Hisaal, Taluka : Shirpur, District : Dhule) .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.K. Tiwari, Advocate, holding for Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 and 2 / caveators. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 9TH MARCH 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. V.B. Patil, appearing for the petitioner, and Adv. Mr. A.K. Tiwari, holding for Adv. Mr. N.L. Choudhari, appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2 / caveators. (3) 2. The petitioner / original defendant has challenged the order dated 9-2-2011, passed by the learned District Judge-2, Jalgaon, in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 144/2009, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the respondents / original plaintiffs and granting temporary injunction in their favour. By the impugned order, the appellate court has set aside the order dated 9-9-2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Pachora, below Exhibit 6 in Regular Civil Suit No. 57 of 2008, by which the trial court had rejected the application filed by the respondents / original plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction. 3. The petitioner is original defendant and prayer made by the present respondents to protect their possession came to be rejected by the trial court. The respondents challenged that order by filing an appeal and by the impugned judgment, that appeal has been allowed. 4. Adv. Mr. V.B. Patil, appearing for the petitioner, contends that the appellate court has given undue importance to the disputed relationship between petitioner and his adoptive father, while the possession ought to have been the deciding factor. He invites attention to previous history to show all earlier authorities have found petitioner / defendant in possession. (4) According to him, appellate court has not looked into these revenue records and developments and only after recording prima facie conclusion that the petitioner has not established his adoption, proceeded to reverse order of the trial court. He further states that before trial court, recording of evidence of plaintiff is already over and the suit itself can be decided within a period of 3 - 4 months. According to him, today, petitioner is in possession and hence that possession should be protected and the suit should be expedited. 5. Adv. Mr. A.K. Tiwari, holding for Adv. Mr. N.L. Choudhari, for respondent nos.1 and 2 / caveators, has supported judgment of the appellate court. According to him, all revenue records till the year of filing of suit show possession of respondents / plaintiffs. He further contents that the appellate court has not only considered the correctness or otherwise of the contention of the petitioner, that he is adopted son of one Sanjee but then, has also looked into revenue records and on that basis, finding in favour of respondents has been reached. 6. Perusal of the judgment of the appellate court, particularly paragraph 16, reveals that the appellate court has found that consistently for the last several years, the revenue records were in favour of plaintiffs and their predecessor. The (5) suit property admittedly belonged to Sanjee Lalchand Vanjari and plaintiffs are his legal heirs. The appellate court has then noted that the mutation entry in the year 1990 records that suit land was given to wife of Sanjee i.e. Jamnabai because of old age of Sanjee and after her death, it would devolve upon the plaintiffs. It has also noted that the story of present petitioner about his adoption was not substantiated and the petitioner inherited some property from his natural father. 7. I, therefore, find that all relevant material has been looked into and thereafter inferences have been drawn by the appellate court. Thus, there is no jurisdiction error or perversity. 8. However, as the suit is pending since the year 2008 and the petitioner has pointed out that evidence of respondents / plaintiffs is practically over, the proceedings in the suit are expedited and the trial court shall attempt to decide the same as early as possible and in any case, by 31st December 2011. 9. With these directions, the petition is disposed of. No costs. 10. At this stage, Adv. Mr. V.B. Patil, appearing for the petitioner, requests that the status quo operating as on today, may (6) be continued for a further period of four weeks. The said request is rejected. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1665