1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1255 OF 2010. Nagorao Vitthal Bokade -: versus :- Baliram Tanba Rahate Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 23, 2010. Heard Shri A.M. Ghare, learned counsel for petitioners/defendants and Shri V.N. Morande, learned counsel for respondent / plaintiff. Courts below have concurrently held in favour of respondent / plaintiff and protected his possession. Shri Morande, learned counsel stated that in the meanwhile the civil suit has continued further and respondent / plaintiff has also closed his evidence. According to him, therefore within specified time suit itself can be finally decided. Shri Ghare, learned counsel points out that the impugned judgment delivered by the Appellate Court is dated 29.01.2010 and hence the right of petitioner to challenge adverse judgment is not taken away because of the closure Pursis allegedly filed by the respondent / plaintiff. He has invited attention of plaint allegations to show that admittedly the respondent plaintiff was not in possession from 1977 to 2 1982 i.e. after the execution of the sale deed till he allegedly moved for mutation. In this respect he has also invited attention to the stand in paragraph no.5 of the plaint to show that the revenue records in the year 1986-87 till 1989-90 are also accepted as showing ownership of respondent but possession of petitioner. The report prepared by Talathi as per communication to him dated 17.10.2008 after spot verification is also pressed into service to show that it establishes possession of petitioner. In this background, attention is invited to the findings recorded by the trial Court to show that the trial Court has taken a biased view of the matter. Report of Talathi, and the affidavits of adjacent neighbours have been disbelieved and finding of possession of respondent has been recorded. Shri Morande, learned counsel on the other hand states that all the documents are looked into and thereafter the finding has been reached by the trial Court which has been maintained by the Appellate Court. Perusal of order show that necessary 7/12 extract are looked into by the trial Court as also the Appellate Court. Report of Talathi along with the affidavit of adjacent neighbourers are also perused and trial Court has also noticed certain inconsistencies in 7/12 extract. However, after considering the entire material, the trial Court has found that the documents reveal ownership of respondent and also the last document reveals his possession. Consideration by the trial Court as also by the Appellate Court is neither erroneous nor perverse. There is no jurisdictional error. The suit is already at the stage of conclusion. The Trial Court is therefore directed to decide the same within a period of three 3 months from the date of communication of this order to it. With these directions, Writ Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. At this stage learned counsel for petitioner has produced some documents to show that these are the documents along with the report of Talathi mentioned above. The documents are placed on record. JUDGE Rgd.