1 wp3231.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 3231 of 2010 Mr. Krishna Rashmin Rajani & ors. ... Petitioners v/s. Mr. Rajendra Deenanath Kesarwani & ors. ... Respondents Mr. H.S. Venegavkar for the petitioners. Mr. S.M. Oka i/b. Sagar Joshi for the respondents. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED :- MARCH 08, 2011. P.C. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the concurrent orders passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane dated 23rd March, 2009 thereby partly allowing the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff and dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 2. The Respondents herein have filed the Special Civil Suit No. 2 wp3231.10.sxw 738/2007 for declaration and injunction in respect of way approximately 93 ft. in length and 30 feet in width. In the said suit the application below exhibit 5 has been filed, praying that the defendants in the said suit be restrained from carrying out unauthorised construction on the suit property and for restraining them from obstructing the plaintiff’s access through the suit property. 3. The present petitioners have also filed RCS No. 102/2008 against the Gram Panchayat, Purna and respondents herein praying for an order of restraining the defendants herein from demolishing the wall. For the same relief an application below exhibit5 was also filed by the petitioners herein. The Application of the present petitioners is rejected and that of the respondents is allowed. Being aggrieved thereby the appeal was preferred by the present petitioners. The same is also dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 4. Shri Venegavkar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Courts below have grossly erred in granting relief of mandatory injunction. He submits that impugned orders are, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 3 wp3231.10.sxw 5. Shri Joshi, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents on the contrary submits that both the Courts have concurrently held that respondents have made out a case for grant of injunction. Therefore, no interference is warranted. 6. No doubt that courts are required to be slow in grant of temporary injunction which is in the nature of mandatory injunction. Equally courts are required to be slow to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, unless the findings so recorded are noticed to be perverse or impossible, it is not permissible to interfere with them. 7. Both the Courts upon perusal of material placed before it have found that in the plan sanctioned by the Gram Panchayat, wall which is sought to be constructed by the present petitioners was not in existence and that same was constructed or sought to be constructed recently. It has further been found that the same was to the effect that it would block the entrance of respondents which was the way used by the respondents towards the main road. The Courts below have also found that the test of balance of convenience and irreparable injury go in favour of the respondents. 4 wp3231.10.sxw 8. No perversity is noticed in the impugned orders to warrant interference. Hence, rejected. (B.R. GAVAI, J)