1 Ash IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 363 OF 2010 Shri Arjuna Mahadu Chougle & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs Shri Maruti Bhagoji Dige & Ors. .. Respondents ­­ Shri A.M. Adagule for the Petitioners. Smt. Anjali Helekar for the Respondents. ­­ CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 9TH APRIL, 2010 P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The Petitioners are the Original Plaintiffs and the Respondent are the Defendants. A suit for injunction has been filed by the Petitioners. The Petitioners claim to be in possession of the suit land more particularly described in Paragraph 1 of the Plaint. The allegation in the plaint is that the Respondents are trying to make a road through the suit land. An application for temporary injunction was made by the Petitioners. Initially ad­interim relief was granted in favour of the Petitioners. The application for temporary injunction was rejected by the Trial Court and the Appeal preferred by the Petitioners has been dismissed by the District Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submitted 2 that there was no evidence on record to show that the Respondents have any right in respect of the suit land. He submitted that there is nothing on record to show that any road is passing through the suit land. He submitted that reliance placed by the Respondents on the order dated 4th April, 2007 passed by the Tahsildar will not help them and the said order has been passed behind the back of the Petitioners. 3. I have considered the submissions. The Courts below and in particular the Appellate Court have referred to an order dated 4th April, 2007 passed by the Tahsildar in exercise of the powers under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906. The said order directs the Petitioners not to obstruct the road passing through the suit land. 4. It is not in dispute that the said order is still operating. Even assuming that there is some illegality in the order, the Petitioners have not challenged the said order which is passed in exercise of the powers under the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the orders of the Courts below by which discretionary and equitable relief of temporary injunction has been denied to the Petitioners. No case of interference is made out in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is rejected. All contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are kept open. (A.S.OKA, J)