(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8521 OF 2009 1. Sunitabai w/o. Subhash Sonowane, 2. Mangal d/o. Subhash Sonowane, 3. Usha d/o. Subhash Sonowane, 4. Jyoti d/o. Subhash Sonowane, 5. Puja d/o. Subhash Sonowane, .. Petitioners 6. Amol Subhash Sonowane, (Original 7. Tushar s/o. Subhash Sonowane. plaintiffs) versus 1. Dada s/o. Patilba Sonowane, 2. Subhash s/o. Jayawanta Sonowane, .. Respondents 3. Rajaram s/o. Dhondiba Sonowane, (Original 4. Yeduba s/o. Januba Suradkar. defendants) .......................... Mr. P.B. Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 15TH DECEMBER 2009. (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 16th February 2009, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bhokardan, below Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 35/2008, thereby rejecting the application filed by the petitioners for grant of temporary injunction. The petitioners have also challenged the order dated 16th November 2009, passed by the learned District Judge-2, Jalna, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 14/2009, thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioners challenging the order dated 16th February 2009 passed by the trial court. 2. Both the courts, on the basis of the documentary evidence, have found that the suit property was purchased by the respondent no.1 herein, from the respondent no.2, for a valuable consideration and in the sale deed itself, there was recital regarding handing over possession. It has further been found that on the basis of the sale deed, necessary mutation entries were also recorded and appeal filed by the plaintiff, challenging the said mutation, was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer. 3. In that view of the matter, no perversity is noticed with the approach adopted by the courts below, in arriving at concurrent findings, so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (3) 4. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp8521