1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4523 OF 2009 1. Bhausaheb S/o Ramrao Rakte } Age : 55 Years, Occ. Argiulture, } R/o : Aher Chincholi, Tq. & } Dist. : Beed. } 2. Bhagwat S/o Ramrao Rakte } Age : 45 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Aher Chincholi, Tq. & } Dist. : Beed. } 3. Pralhad S/o Ramrao Rakte } Age : 40 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Aher Chincholi, Tq. & } Dist. : Beed. } .... PETITIONERS V E R S U S 1. Balkrishna S/o Gena Bahir } Age : 85 Years, Occ. Agriculture, } R/o : Aher Chincholi, Tq. & } Dist. Beed. } 2. Bansi S/o Gena Bahir } Age : 75 Years, Occ. Agriculture } R/o : Aher Chincholi, Tq. & } Dist. Beed. } 2 3. Pralhad S/o Gena Bahir } Age : 70 Years, Occ. Agriculture } R/o : Aher Chincholi, Tq. & } Dist. Beed. } 4. Bhagwan S/o Rama Bahir } Age : 55 Years, Occ. Agriculture } R/o : Aher Chincholi, Tq. & } Dist. Beed. } .... RESPONDENTS Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Counsel for Petitioner. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. [ CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. ] DATE : 29/7/2009 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this Petition is heard finally at the admission stage. 2. Heard Mr. Dhananjay Deshpande, Counsel for Petitioner and Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. 3 3. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the Order dated 15/4/2009 passed by the District Judge – 2, Beed below Exh. 5 in R.C.A. No. 33 of 2009. 4. A few facts of the present case are as under : Respondent/Plaintiff filed R.C.S. No. 106 of 2004 in the Court of the Civil Judge (J.D. ), Beed for declaration of ownership and for perpetual injunction. It is the case of the Respondent/plaintiff that they are owner of the suit property as described in paragraph no. 1 of the plaint. In the said R.C.S. No. 106 of 2004, Respondent preferred Exh. 5 for injunction. The same was allowed. Thereafter the petitioner/defendant preferred Misc. Appeal. Said Appeal was dismissed. Thereafter 3rd Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Beed decreed R.C.S. No. 106 of 2004 as under : ORDER 1) Suit is decreed with the cost. 2) The plaintiffs are declared owner and in possession of suit property mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint. 3) Defendants and their servants, agents are perpetually restrained from obstructing in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. 4 4) Decree be drawn accordingly. 5) Dictated and pronounced in the open Court. 5. Being aggrieved by the said Decree, the petitioner preferred R.C.A. No. 33 of 2009. In the said Appeal, petitioner preferred Exh. 5 for stay of Judgment and Decree dated 23/1/2009. The said application below Exh. 5 was dismissed by order dated 15/4/2009. As there is concurrent findings of trial Court and the appellate Court in Misc. Appeal preferred by the petitioner, I do not find any substance to interfere with the order dated 15/4/2009. The Apex Court in the matter of Mohammed Yusuf V/s Faij Mohammad & Others reported in 2009 (1) SCALE 71, held that orders passed by the trial Court and the Revision Court can be interfered under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India only on limited grounds namely illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. I do not find any illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety in the order dated 15/4/2009 passed by the appellate court. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Rule is discharged accordingly. [ K.K. TATED ] JUDGE knp/WP4523.09 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15