( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 109 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11697 OF 2008 Jalindar s/o. Bansi Tangde .. Appellant Versus Madhukar s/o. Dattatray Thosar & ors. .. Respondents Shri A.D. Tidke, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.D. Hiwarekar, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 17.08.2009 P.C. :- 1. Heard Adv. Shri A.D. Tidke h/f. Adv. Shri S.S. Thombre for the appellant and Adv. Shri S.D. Hiwarekar for respondent No.1. This is an appeal from order filed by appellant/defendant No.1 being aggrieved by the grant of injunction application (Exh.7) in Regular Civil Appeal No.120 of 2008, by the Principal District Judge, Beed, 2. Briefly stated, Gat No. 443 situated at Dhorwadi ( 2 ) (Parbhani) Tal. Wadwani is belonging to Shri Ram Mandir, Beed. Respondent No.1 filed suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 353 of 2003 against present appellant and remaining respondents for perpetual injunction. He stated that he is a tenant of the suit property. He is in possession of the property. The land was cultivated by him. Present appellant and other respondents were causing obstruction. Therefore, he filed suit for perpetual injunction. The Trial Court after considering various documents on record including 7/12 extract, has come to conclusion at the end of para 27 that plaintiff has proved his possession over the suit property. However, the suit for injunction was not decreed on the ground that respondent No.1/plaintiff was not in position to tell date, month or year of the obstruction that was caused and it is also said that he had not mentioned boundaries of the suit property. 3. It can be noted that the suit property is survey number and can be easily identified. It is not that suit property is part of Gat number and the defendant is also owner of part of it. The injunction is sought in respect of entire Gat No. 442. Moreover, in case of illiterate person ( 3 ) it may not be possible to give date and month of a particular event. The written statement itself shows that original defendant had challenged right and possession of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 to cultivate. 4. In this view of the matter there is no necessity of interference with the injunction order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Beed. This Appeal From Order No. 109 of 2008 is dismissed. 5. In view of disposal of this Appeal From Order, Civil Application No. 11697 of 2008 does not survive. The Civil Application also stands disposed of. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/AUG09/ao109.08