1 C.A.NO. 7076/2009. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7076 OF 2005 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.80 OF 2007. Vinayak Laxman Raut ...Appellant. VERSUS Eknath Ramnarayan Zarekar & another. ...Respondents. ... Mr.Dhananjay Deshpande, Advocate for the applicant. None present for the respondents Nos.1 and 2. ... CORAM: A.V.NIRGUDE,J. Date : 24th August, 2009. COURT’S ORDER: 1. Despite of service the respondents are not before the Court. The appeal is filed against the decree passed in favour of the respondents. Pursuant to the impugned decree, the respondents are now able to claim that they are in possession and the appellant should be kept out of the suit land. If this decree is stayed, the present 2 C.A.NO. 7076/2009. appellant would be able to resume their stand that they are in possession of the suit land. Despite of this precarious position between the parties qua the suit land, the respondents have chosen not to come before the Court. Does it mean that they are not interested in opposing the application? 2. In this background, I am inclined to look into the finding of the trial Court. The trial Court had held that the present appellant was in possession of the suit land. Due importance to this finding is required to be given. The application is allowed. There shall be order in terms of prayer clause (B) of this Application. (A.V.NIRGUDE,J.) lkp