1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 13 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3854 OF 2009 Kalandarkha Sardarkha, .vs. 1] Shamrao s/o Singraji Parve, & 2] Sau. Alka w/o Shyamrao Parve, Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.V. Bhide, Advocate for the appellant, ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 28th JANUARY, 2010. 1] It is seen that the learned District Judge has reversed the order of trial Court. After appreciating the documentary evidence, learned District Judge held that the plaintiffs are in possession and hence, directed temporary injunction during the pendency of suit. 2] Sole ground raised in this Letters Patent Appeal is that the affidavits filed by the defendant in support of his claim to prove that the plaintiffs are not in possession have not been appreciated, scrutinized and dealt with by the learned District Judge and the same error has been repeated by the learned Single Judge. 3] This Court has scrutinized the record annexed to Letters Patent Appeal. This Court 2 finds that the judgment of the District Judge discloses proper discussion of the documentary evidence. The contention of the appellant that affidavits have not been dealt with in the order seems to be factual. However, it does not necessarily mean that those are not seen. 4] This Court has further observed that it is not a ground urged either before the District Judge or before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court that the documentary evidence or conclusions reached from documentary evidence were impermissible or are perverse. 5] When evidence of various types was available before the Court and evidence in the shape of public documents is considered and relied upon, failure to refer to affidavits would not by itself vitiate the order of the District Judge. 6] In the result, on account of alleged inadequacy of reasons relating to affidavits, the order of the learned Single Judge upholding the order of District Court cannot be upset. 7] When the judgment and order under appeal is even otherwise not liable to be faulted, there is no ground to grant any 3 indulgence. 8] The appeal has no merit and is rejected. Judge Judge J.