1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3750 OF 2009 Shri Sahebrao s/o. Madhav Gunjal ..Petitioners Versus Ananda s/o. Damu Gunjal and others. --- Mr. S.S. Shete, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Kulkarni, Advocate for the respondents CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 8th July, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] . By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 28th April, 2009, vide which the appeal filed by the present respondent, challenging the order refusing 2 temporary injunction came to be allowed and the order of injunction came to be passed. . Shri Shete, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that eh learned Appellate Court has grossly erred in reversing the order of the learned trial court, which refused injunction in favour of the respondent. . The petitioner plaintiff has filed a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction. In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction was also filed. The same is rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondent/defendant filed an appeal before the District Judge. The same is allowed. Hence, the present petition. . No doubt, the scope of interference in an appeal against order under Order 43 (1r) of the C.P.C. is limited. Unless the view taken by the trial court is found to be perverse or impossible, it is not permissible for this court to reverse the said finding. . From the perusal of the order passed by the trial court, it would reveal that the trial court has almost decided the suit. It can be seen that the claim of the plaintiff is based upon the decree passed in R.C.S.NO. 652/1989. It can further be seen that the appeal preferred by the present petitioners against the said decree was again dismissed for want of prosecution. In pursuance of the said 3 decree, in the execution proceedings, the possession of the land in question was handed to the present respondents. . Though it is the case of the present petitioners that it was only a paper possession, there is nothing to substantiate the same. The learned Appellate court has found that possession receipts were made in accordance with the execution proceeding and record of rights were also accordingly mutated. It has been found that the approach adopted by the learned trial court was of such nature that it amounted to re-opening the partition, which had culminated in the execution proceeding. In that view of the matter, it can be said that the learned Appellate Court was justified in reversing the order passed by the trial court. The petition is, therefore, found without any merits and as such, the same is rejected. It is made clear that the observations made by the learned trial court, the appellate court, or this court should not be taken into consideration at the stage of decision of the suit. grt/ [B.R. GAVAI,J.] 4