(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 520 OF 2011 Manikrao s/o. Maroti Somangire, Age : 80 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Hiwra [Tarfe Jawla-Panchal], .. Petitioners Taluka : Kalamnuri, Dist. : Hingoli, (Original defendants) and 7 others. versus Shesherao s/o. Manikrao Somangire, Age : 45 years, Occupation : Agriculture, .. Respondent R/o. Hiwra [Tarfe Jawla-Panchal], (Original plaintiff) Taluka : Kalamnuri, Dist. : Hingoli. ....................... Mr. G.G. Kadam, Advocate, for the petitioners. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 24TH JANUARY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Mr. G.G. Kadam, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, states that there was partition way back in the year 1990 and that partition is sought to be assailed in the suit filed in the year 2002. According to him, relationship between the petitioner's father and respondent son were not cordial since 1990. The respondent / plaintiff was placed in possession of his separate share. 2. The respondent / plaintiff is not accepting any such partition and he is treating entire property as ancestral one. In support of partition, reliance is being placed only upon an entry in revenue records. The appellate court has found that after suit was instituted, the petitioner / defendant has sold part of the property. 3. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has attempted to demonstrate that suit summons has been served upon the petitioner / defendant after the date of sale deed. These niceties are not relevant at this stage when prima facie case, balance of convenience and possibility of irreparable are being taken into consideration. (3) 4. As I do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity with the judgment of the appellate court, no interference is called for. 5. In the result, the petition is dismissed. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp520