1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3169 OF 2009 Anant Rajendra Saruk and another .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents --- Mr. A.G. Dalal, Advocate for the petitioner WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3173 OF 2009 Prabhakar s/o. Vaijnath Saruk and another. .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 9TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners challenge the concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the learned trial court, thereby 2 rejecting the application for temporary injunction filed by the present petitioners and by the learned District Judge, Ambejogai, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners. 2. Shri Dalal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the petitioners are in possession of the property in view of the validly executed sale deed in their favour. He submits that the decree, which is passed in R.C.S. No. 176/1976 against the vendors of the present petitioners is in a collusive suit and, therefore, on the basis of the said decree, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the possession. 3. Admittedly, the decree on the basis of which the respondents have filed the Regular Darkhast No. 17/2003 is passed in R.C.S. No. 123/1976. The said decree has been confirmed by the appellate court and also by this court. Admittedly, the alleged transfer in favour of the petitioners is effected in the year 1984, i.e. during the pendency of R.C.S. No. 123/1976. In that view of the matter, it could not be said that the view taken by the learned Courts below that the respondents can not be deprived of the fruits of the decree passed in R.C.S. No. 123/1976 is any way 3 perverse. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. Needless to state that this court has considered at this stage only the aspect of grant of injunction or otherwise and as such, the observations made by this court, so also, by the learned appellate court are only concerning the grant/refusal of temporary injunction. [B.R. GAVAI, J.] /home/grt/9june9/wp