cra169,11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRA NO. 169 OF 2011 RAGHUNATH PARBATA CHOUDHAR AND ANR. ... APPLICANTS. VERSUS PANDHARI VISHWANATH CHOUDHAR AND ORS. ...RESPONDENTS ... Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhavthankar V.V. Advocate for Respondent(s) : Mr.SG Chapalgaonkar ... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: August 23, 2011 PER COURT: 1. The learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the land in question is a barren land and since 1997 it was not under cultivation and, therefore, there is no question of obstruction by the applicants. The suit land was not under cultivation is an admitted position and therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the applicants, there was no question of any obstruction. The learned Counsel further cra169,11 2 submits that the order impugned in this revision application was passed in 2011 and the original order perpetually restraining the applicants was passed in the year, 1997. Therefore, according to him, lenient view may be taken. 2. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the evidence was brought on record to prove obstruction by the applicants and after appreciation of the evidence, the Court below has taken the view and rightly exercised the powers under O. XXI, R. 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. 3. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions of the parties. From perusal of paragraphs 11 to 14 of the impugned judgment, it is clear that the Court below has discussed the evidence brought on record. The evidence of witness Uttam has been discussed in para 11. Witness Uttam has admitted that judgment debtors were not allowing the decree holders to cultivate the dispute land. The decree holders have also proved that when the decree holders tried to cut the trees, the judgment debtors obstructed them from cutting the trees by lodging police cra169,11 3 report against them. It is observed by the trial Court that the judgment debtors did not allow the decree holders to cut the trees and make the land in condition for cultivation and, therefore, the land survey No.183/1 is lying fallen. Therefore, such findings of fact recorded by the Court below needs no interference. Therefore, in my opinion, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that while passing the order, the trial Court has exceeded its jurisdiction or committed illegality or irregularity while passing the impugned order. On the contrary, the order passed by the trial Court is in consonance with the evidence brought on record by the parties. Taking into consideration the pendency of the matter for considerable period, the trial Court has taken a reasonable view thereby directing the judgment debtors No.1 and 2 to be detained in civil prison for 7 days. 4. After hearing the learned Counsel for the applicants, this Court is not inclined to entertain this civil revision application. However, the learned Counsel for the applicants makes an alternative submission that the applicant No.1 is of 75 years old and applicant No.2 is 70 cra169,11 4 years old. He, therefore, submits that the applicants will pay some amount to the respondents and they may not be put in civil prison. However, the learned Counsel for respondents submits that such offer is not acceptable. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the learned Counsel for the applicants cannot be considered. 5 In the result, civil revision application is devoid of any merits and the same stands dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*