1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3890 OF 2010 Chandrakant Bhagwan Bagde and others. ..PETITIONERS -VERSUS- Pramod Vishnupant Bedre and others. ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. Y.V. Kakde, advocate for petitioners. Mr. D.R. Jayabhar, advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 11 st August, 2010. PER COURT : 1. By this Petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order rendered by first appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No.135/2009. The respondent no.1 is the original plaintiff, whereas the petitioners are the original defendant nos.1 to 4. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appeal preferred by the respondents came to be allowed and temporary injunction is clamped from the petitioners. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of record, it is amply clear that the petitioner no.1 is maternal uncle of the respondent no.1. It is also undisputed fact 2 that the petitioner no.1 executed the registered sale deed dated 30th March, 1993 in favour of the respondent no.1 (plaintiff) indicating transfer of the suit land for consideration of Rs. 1,61,000/-. It is worthy to be noted that the petitioner no.1 has filed separate suit for cancellation of that sale deed on allegation that it is executed by way of security of loan. The respondent no.1 filed the suit for injunction and sought temporary injunction by way of application (Exh.5). The trial Court rejected his application. The first appellate Court, however, allowed the application. 4. Clinching question is whether the impugned judgment and order passed by the first Appellate Court can be regarded as perverse, arbitrary or capricious in order to invoke the jurisdiction available under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The first appellate Court noticed certain circumstances while appreciating the fact situation. First, after the registered sale deed dated 30th March, 1993, the names of the respondents were mutated in the revenue record on the basis of the said sale deed, as owners and purchasers of the suit land purported to be sold out to them. The petitioners did not raise any objection at the relevant time when the mutation entry was sought by the respondents and was sanctioned. The petitioner no.1 did not not challenge the mutation entries, which were appearing in the revenue record since 1993 3 onwards i.e. for about 10 years. For the first time, he submitted application in the year 2006, for recording his name in the relevant column of 7/12 record alleging that the transaction was not of sale. The dispute about mutation entries was going on before the competent Authority. The respondents are not shown to be money lenders as such, by demonstrating other instances of the money lending. The first appellate Court also noticed that the petitioner no.2 alleged repayment of loan amount along with interest but such averments were not corroborated by any such documents. Considering the relations between the parties, ordinarily, the respondent no.1 might not have betrayed his own maternal uncle in such transaction. In any case, the impugned judgment and order is based on available material and can not be regarded as perverse. Moreover, there are disputed questions of facts involved in the Petition. Under the circumstances, the Petition is dismissed with direction to expedite the trial of the suit filed by the petitioners and if so required, to simultaneously try the suit filed by the respondent along with the other suit which is filed by the petitioner. Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/wp3240.10