1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 42 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 42 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Mukhedkar for Petitioner/ original defendant, Advocate Mrs. Ansari for Respondents. 2. Contention is, plaint itself suffer from material suppression of facts, inasmuch as execution of will deed by deceased Raibhan Shinde and fact that it was attested by the respondent/ plaintiff was suppressed. Even the position in relation to mutation entries was not correctly pointed out. Learned counsel states that as per will executed by Raibhan Shinde the petitioner/ defendant is entitled to 0.94 Ares of the land and hence trial Court has correctly refused interim relief to that extent. Appellate Court should not have interfered in the matter and granted interim relief in relation to entire land i.e. even to the extent of this 0.94 Ares land. Advocate Smt. Ansari contends, 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 42 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. alleged suppression has got no bearing insofar as fact of possession is concerned. According to her, petitioner could not produce on record any document to substantiate his possession. The finding in this respect is finding of fact and this Court should not interfere at this stage. Advocate Mr. Mukhedkar invited attention to para 7 to urge that there possession of petitioner has been recorded. 3. The names in revenue records and mutation entries appear to be in dispute and litigation in that connection is going on. In any case, those entries are not decisive before civil Court. If the petitioner defendant is in cultivating possession he could have produced some documents to show his actual possession. Those documents are not produced. The statement that Raibhan died intestate appears in plaint but then at this stage as it does not have any bearing on 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 42 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. fact of physical possession of the suit land, the suppression cannot be treated as fatal. 4. The Appellate Court has considered all relevant material and there is no jurisdictional error or perversity. Petition, therefore, is rejected. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:17/01/2011. ans/42