1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4561 OF 2010. Santosh Bapurao Jamodkar and another. -: VERSUS :- Shivdas Ramdas Belsare 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. DATED : NOVEMBER 22, 2010. Heard Shri A.J. Thakkar, learned Counsel for petitioners and Shri S.D. Chopde, learned Counsel for respondent – caveator. The defendants are challenging reversing judgment delivered by the District Judge-I, Akot in M.C.A. No.28/2010, thereby allowing temporary injunction application at Exh.5 filed by the respondent/plaintiff before the trial Court. Contention is, the Appellate Court did not consider the nature of property and also the documents placed on record by the petitioners to show that they are in possession of 2 acres of land because of inheritance. The 2 judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court reported at 2000 [3] Mh.L.J. 347 (Ganesh D. Daivajna .vrs. Prakash S. Salkar) is pressed into service to urge that, nature of property and finding about it is vital at this stage. Shri Chopde, learned Counsel for respondent/ plaintiff has supported the impugned order. He points out that the property has been mutated in the name of respondent/plaintiff since last about 9 years and because of revenue records the receipts of of labour charges and affidavit of neighbours are not accepted by the Appellate Court. In so far as the finding of possession is concerned, the Appellate Court has evaluated the material placed before it by both the parties and has chosen to rely upon the revenue record after noting that for more than 9 yeas the petitioners failed to take any steps for getting their names mutated in the revenue record. The appreciation cannot be labeled either as perverse or erroneous. Father of present petitioners Bapurao had executed a sale deed and in Regular Civil Suit filed by the respondent he has pointed out that the property initially belong to Gulabrao and Gulabrao executed a Will in favour 3 of said Bapurao, that Will has been found to be genuine in Regular Civil Suit No.23 of 1994. At this stage the learned Counsel has invited attention of the Court to Annexure-10. The said Annexure is only an extract of register of Civil Court at Akot. It mentions that the suit No. 23/1994 abated because of death of plaintiff. I am not in a position to appreciate this document at this stage. The appellate Court has considered these facts and it has found that as respondent/ plaintiff was in possession the nature of suit property was not very relevant at interlocutory stage. I again, do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity. However, looking to the nature of the controversy, the trial Court to attempt to decide the suit as early as possible. With the above discussion, Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.