1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4638 OF 2009 (Anandabai T. Bisen & Ors. vs. Ramchandra Deosthan Ram Mandir) 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. FEBRUARY 25, 2010. Heard Shri Charlewar, Advocate holding for Shri Borkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vastani, learned counsel for the respondent. The respondent – Trust filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners from interfering with its possession. In that suit, they moved an application for grant of temporary injunction vide Exh. 5 which came to be rejected on 22.07.2009. Thereafter they filed MCA No. 31 of 2009 and District Judge – 1, Gondia on 21.08.2009 allowed that appeal, protected their possession and restrained the petitioners from creating any third party interest till decision of suit. Shri Charlewar, Advocate argues that without considering the aspect of prima facie case and though there is no finding on how respondent – plaintiff acquired title or possession, the prayer came to be granted by lower appellate Court ignoring the well reasoned order of the trial Court. He has invited attention to both the orders for said purpose. 2 Shri Vastani, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, relies upon continuous possession of respondent – plaintiff since 1907 to defend the order passed by the appellate Court. I have perused the order passed by the trial Court. The trial Court in paras 16 to 18 of its order, noticed that revenue records reveal possession of respondent – plaintiff. However, because of its observation in para 17 about non availability of any registered gift deed in favour of the respondent, it has not accepted those documents and recorded that there is no prima facie case in favour of the respondent. The lower appellate Court has relied upon those documents and the continuous possession recorded therein and in view of this position prevailing from 1907 to 2001-02, it has granted necessary interim relief. While so doing, it has also noted that the revenue records by themselves were not sufficient to prove the possession of the respondent – plaintiff over the suit land “on the date of suit”. However, the consideration by lower appellate Court clearly shows that it has relied upon revenue records to hold that the respondent – plaintiff is in continuous possession. There were no other records produced by the parties to show their possession. The petitioner – defendant did not produce any other material to show that those records were incorrect and in fact the petitioner was in possession. In this situation, I am not inclined to interfere 3 in writ jurisdiction as the finding recorded by lower appellate Court cannot be labeled either as erroneous or perverse. Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the suit should be directed to be decided expeditiously. The trial Court to attempt to decide the suit as early as possible. JUDGE *GS.