1 S.A.No.710/10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO.710 OF 2010 _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | _______________________|_______________________________________ CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 07.12.2010. 1. This is defendants' Second Appeal. The plaintiff had filed a suit for injunction restraining the Respondent from interfering in his possession over the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit. The defendants preferred an appeal. The appellate Court modified the decree of the trial Court to the extent that the plaintiff shall not be dispossessed without due process of law. As such the blanket injunction granted by the trial Court was modified. The defendants have assailed the said judgment in the present Second Appeal. 2 S.A.No.710/10 2. Mr.Dasalkar, learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that when the Court below has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not get any right on the basis of the said partition deed Exh.67 then in such circumstances, he would not be entitled for any injunction. In fact, the suit property is allotted to the present appellants in oral partition in the year 1989. The lower appellate Court had committed an error in relying on the revenue entries which are subjudice before the competent authority. 3. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgments of the Courts below. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the plaintiff is in possession of the property. The Courts taking into account the revenue record, so also on appreciation of the oral evidence have come to the said conclusion. The said conclusion is a possible conclusion. The Second Appeal can not be entertained only on the ground that some other view is also possible. 3 S.A.No.710/10 Even otherwise, the lower appellate Court has not closed the doors of the present appellants. 4. In light of the above, the Second Appeal being devoid of substantial question of law, is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) Dt.07.12.2010. asp/office/sa710.10 4 S.A.No.710/10