: 1 : 8476-11-wp=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8476 OF 2011 Ramrao Pandurang Patil .. Petitioner v/s. Anand Krishna Patil & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Bhushan A. Walimbe for the petitioner Mr. T.S. Ingale for respondent nos. 1 to 3. ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J DATE : 19th OCTOBER,2011. P.C. : 1. Heard learned advocates on both sides. The petitioner filed R.C. Suit No.174 of 2008 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division at Islampur, Dist. Sangli. Application below Exh12 was decided by the learned trial Judge and the Exh.5 application was rejected. Against that the petitioner filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.44 of 2008 in the Court of District Judge-I, Islampur. The learned District Judge-I dismissed the said appeal by Judgment and Order dated 19th July, 2011. Against these two orders, this petition is filed. : 2 : 8476-11-wp=.sxw 2. It is common ground that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property as a lessee till 18th November, 2001. According to the respondent nos. 1 to 3, the possession in respect of the property was regained by the respondent nos.1 to 3 after expiration of the lease and mutation entries were made. The learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the notice sent by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 in the year 2007 admits that petitioner is in possession. Thereafter, this suit has been filed in the year 2008. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner has not been able to produce any specific document to show that he is in possession except the aforesaid notice. As against this, respondent nos. 1 to 3 have been able to produce 7x12 extract thereby the crop cultivation remarks of the Revenue Authority are in favour of the respondent no.2 Pratibha showing that she is the Kabjedar of the land and that she is cultivating the suit land. Between the two rival documents, it will be proper to rely upon the 7x12 extract, which go to show that respondent no.2 is enjoying the possession of the suit property. If the petitioner would have produced other necessary documents so as to show revenue record then it could have been held that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question. : 3 : 8476-11-wp=.sxw 3. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the case of the petitioner that he is in possession cannot be accepted as has been done by the Court below. Of course, this finding of Court below has to be treated as prima-facie finding because it was arrived at the stage of disposal of the application for interim relief. For the aforesaid reasons, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, following order is passed. ORDER (i) Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. (ii) Whatever is stated in the impugned order and by this Court cannot be used by the trial Court at the time of disposal of the suit. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)