1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6629 OF 2011 Dashrath Baburao Pawar & Others ...Petitioners Versus Shri Vinayak Somnath Sonwane & Another ...Respondents Mr.Vivek Salunkhe with P.B.Shah for the Petitioner Mr.R.M.Haridas i/b. P.N.Joshi for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for the Respondent State CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 29th SEPTEMBER, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard learned Advocates on both sides. The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No.91 of 2010 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Dindori, District Nashik for an injunction restraining the present respondents from interfering with the right of way in regard to the road more particularly described in the plaint. 2 2. The learned trial Judge, by Order dated 24.11.2010 granted order of injunction against which Misc. Civil Appeal was filed and said Misc. Civil Appeal No.122 of 2010 filed in the Court of learned District Judge-2, Nashik was allowed on 29.6.2011 and the order of injunction granted by the learned trial Judge was set aside. This order dated 29.6.2011 is challenged in this proceeding. 3. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. The Appellate Court has considered the report which was obtained at the site for the purpose of deciding the matter in question. A perusal of the said report goes to show that new road is sought to be created and that is how the learned Appellate Court has disbelieved the case of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the petitioners have been enjoying the right of way for a period of about 80 to 90 years. If such a long usage is enjoyed by the petitioners or their predecessors, it is difficult to accept that on a given date the respondent would try to oppose the petitioners from enjoying the right of way. 4. The learned Appellate Court has considered the record in its proper perspective and has applied its mind in proper manner. It is pertinent 3 to note that Vahiwat Case No. 16 of 2005 was initiated by the petitioner and the petitioner lost before the Appropriate Authorities and thereafter they moved this Court in Writ Petition, and when this court indicated to the petitioners that they should establish their civil rights by filing appropriate suit. The petitioners thought it fit to file a regular civil suit. The very fact that the Vahiwat case has been decided against the petitioners it prima facie shows that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case in their favour. Considering the entire record, I am of the view that there is no need to interfere in the impugned order. Hence following order is passed to dispose of this petition. ORDER Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. The trial court shall decide the suit without being influenced by this order. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)