1 73-10016-10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY srj CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10016 OF 2010 Smt. Vanita N. Patil & Others .. Petitioners Vs. Shri Sudhir V. Kapadi .. Respondent. Mr. P.S.Dani, for Petitioners. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI, J. DATE : 7th JANUARY, 2011. P.C.: 1 The present Petitioners have challenged the concurrent order dated 3rd January, 2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Alibag, thereby rejecting the application for temporary injunction and the order passed by the learned Principal District Judge Raigad dated 5th August, 2010 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present Petitioners. 2 73-10016-10.sxw 2 Shri P.S.Dani, learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that the learned Courts below have failed to take in to consideration the documents which would establish the title of the Petitioner over the suit land. 3 The scope of interference under article 227 of the Constitution is very limited. Unless it is found that discretion exercised by the trial Court has been exercised in perverse manner, it will not be possible for this Court to interfere with the same. Learned Courts have given cogent reasons in the impugned order. 4 There are concurrent findings of the Courts below that the Plaintiff has failed to establish prima facie that he was in possession of the suit land and, therefore, refused to grant an order of injunction. The said findings are based upon the material which is placed on record. It cannot be said that the findings recorded are perverse. 5 In view of the above, no interference is warranted. Hence, Writ Petition is rejected. (B.R.GAVAI, J.)