1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1325 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1325 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard Advocate Shah for Petitioner, Advocate Mr. Tiwari for Respondent No.1/ Caveator. 2. The Respondent No.1 filed a suit for protecting his possession and sought temporary injunction. That has been allowed by trial Court. Appeal filed by petitioners against it is rejected by the District Judge on 1st October, 2010. These concurrent orders are questioned before this Court. 3. Shri Shah points out that transaction between Petitioner and Respondent No.1 was a loan transaction and possession was never transferred. After arranging money for repayment, petitioners approached Respondent No.1 and at that time some dispute arose. Petitioners therefore filed a police complaint under Money Lending Act. Meeting was arranged between parties on 10th June, 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1325 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 2008 and thereafter the matter was amicably settled under the scheme known as "Mahatma Gandhi Tanta Mukt Gaon Yojana". The compromise was accordingly recorded. Petitioner was to pay amount of Rs.6 Lacs by 1st January, 2009 but before that date the Respondent filed civil suit. 4. He further urges that in order to show their possession, the petitioners have placed on record the proceedings of Tanta Mukt Samiti recorded on 10th June, 2008, the affidavits of neighbouring holders and substantiated their grievance. The similar loans advanced earlier were also brought on record and the fact that proceeding dated 10th June, 2008 were suppressed in plaint was also urged. 5. As against this, the Respondent/ plaintiff only produced the registered sale deed and the revenue entries made in pursuance thereof. The other evidence 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1325 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. produced by him was of some persons allegedly cultivating lands but their lands are not in vicinity and numbers of their holdings are not disclosed. He argues that in this situation, merely because there was registered sale deed or then revenue entries, the Appellate Court could not have recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Shri Tiwari has supported the impugned orders. He points out that both the Courts have looked into relevant material and the findings recorded are concurrent. 7. The Appellate Court has looked into the story of present petitioners and thereafter has also looked into the affidavits produced by them on record, affidavits produced by Respondent/ plaintiff on record and then registered sale deed and the revenue records showing possession of Respondent/ plaintiff. It has also appreciated case law cited before it. Shri Shah has attempted to show that 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1325 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. appreciation of case law is not proper and importance could not have been given to the registered document in peculiar facts. 8. As I find that both the Courts have looked into relevant material and thereafter have recorded their finding it cannot be said that there is any jurisdictional error. The finding also cannot be said to be perverse because the Appellate Court has found it proper to accept revenue entries and also the registered document. The consideration, therefore, is in accordance with law. 9. The suit filed is in the year 2008 and Miscellaneous Civil Appeal was then filed in the year 2009. The interim orders passed by trial Court and maintained by Appellate Court are operating since 13th June, 2009. 10. In this situation, interest of justice can be met with by expediting hearing of Regular Civil Suit No.113 of 2008 and by directing the Court of Civil Judge, Junior 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 1325 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Division, Pachora to decide that suit as early as possible and in any case within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order to it. The plaintiff shall, however, maintain status-quo as on today in relation to suit property and shall not create any third party interest or any other encumbrances or alter its nature during pendency of the suit. 11. Needless to mention that the observations made by this Court are prima- facie in nature and shall not influence trial Court while appreciating the controversy on merits. 12. With these restraints on the right of Respondent No.1/ plaintiff, present writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:08/03/2011. ans/1325