1 wp5693.10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5693 OF 2010 _____________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | appearances, Court's | Court’s or Judge’s orders orders or | directions and | Registrar's orders | _____________________________________________________________________ Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Counsel holding for Mr. A.S. Gandhi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.V. Gore, Advocate for respondent. 1. Heard Mr. Mandlik, Senior Advocate for the petitioner-plaintiff and Advocate Mr. R.V. Gore for respondent. The trial Court had granted prayer for temporary injunction moved by the petitioner-plaintiff and protected his possession. The respondent preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 32 of 2009 and vide judgment dated 12.03.2010, the District Court at Aurangabad (Adhoc District Judge-1) has allowed it. The contention of Senior Advocate is, the appeal has been allowed only because of the mutation entries in favour of the present respondent. He points out that subsequently those mutation entires have been set aside and there is direction to add the name of petitioner-plaintiff in revenue 2 wp5693.10 record. 2. Advocate Mr. Gore in reply thereto points out that the order directing to include the name of petitioner- plaintiff in revenue record is further questioned by the respondent-defendant before the Additional Collector in Second Appeal and the appeal is now fixed for consideration of prayer for stay. 3. The facts show that the petitioner-plaintiff claims title and possession because of the sale deed executed in his favour in 1996 by father of present respondent. The respondent claims title and possession because of the sale deed in his favour by the said father in the year 2004. 4. It is apparent that in these facts, the importance can not be given to revenue entries. The Appellate Court ought to have considered the material on record and thereafter attempted to decide the aspect of possession, as that has not been done. I find the judgment dated 12.03.2010 is unsustainable. Same is accordingly quashed and set aside. The proceedings in Misc. Civil Application no. 32 of 2009 is restored back to the file of learned District Court at Aurangabad for taking a fresh decision in the matter. The Appellate Court shall attempt to decide the said matter as early as possible and in any case by 30th April, 2011. The parties are directed to 3 wp5693.10 appear before that Court on 23rd February, 2011 and to communicate this order to it. 5. With above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE. 10.02.2011 gas/wp5693.10