1 wp 5011.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5011 OF 2011 Ramchandra Khandu Pandharkar .. Petitioner Versus Pandurang Mhasku Lokhande and others .. Respondents Shri V. P. Latange, Advocate for the Petitioner. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 11TH JULY, 2011. PER COURT : . The present respondents have filed suit for injunction restraining the present petitioner from interfering in their possession. The respondents also filed an application for temporary injunction. The Trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner filed miscellaneous civil appeal. The Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal confirming the findings of the Trial Court. The defendant has assailed the said judgment in the present writ petition. 2 wp 5011.11 2. Shri Latange, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts have failed to consider that in the year 2009 itself the present petitioner had filed a suit seeking declaration that the sale deed executed in favour of present respondents is not out and out sale and in the said suit also the application for temporary injunction was filed by the present petitioner and with the consent of both the parties it was decided to hear that application along with the suit. This aspect has not been considered. The learned counsel further contends that the Tahsildar has drawn the panchanama in October 2010, which shows the possession of the present petitioner. This aspect is also not considered by the Courts. 3. This Court in its supervisory jurisdiction would not embark upon the investigation of facts. Both the Courts have concurrently prima facie found the respondents to be in possession. The Courts have considered the registered instrument of sale executed by the present petitioner in favour of respondents in the year 2001. The Courts have also considered the 7/12 extract which shows the name of the present respondents in the ownership and cultivation column. The view taken by the Courts below is plausible view. In that light of the 3 wp 5011.11 matter, no case for interference is made out. 4. Needless to state that observations made at this stage are only prima facie in nature and the Trial Court would decide the suit on its own merits on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/July 11