1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR APPEAL AGAINST ORDER NO. 140/2010 ( Balkrishna Pralhad Chandurkar and others ..versus... Jagannath Ganpat Kale and others) ................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................... Shri Gopal G. Mishra, counsel for Appellant Shri M.P.Dhandekar, counsel for respondents ... CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATED : 9th FEBRUARY, 2011. This appeal against order is filed by the plaintiffs challenging the rejection of the application (Exh. 5) filed for grant of temporary injunction in Reg. Civil Appeal No. 109/2009. 2/ The trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/appellant by its judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2009. The specific finding is recorded that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title over the suit property and the defendants are found to be in possession of the suit property. 2 The claim of the plaintiffs that they are in possession of the suit field has been rejected. The appellate Court concurrent with the findings recorded by the trial Court on prima facie assessment of the case for deciding an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C. 3/- Shri Mishra, the learned counsel submits that the findings recorded by the trial court that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title and possession over the suit field has been questioned in regular civil appeal filed before the appellate Court. The order of injunction was passed pending the decision of the suit, restraining the defendants from disturbing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit field. That was operating till the decision of the suit on 23rd July, 2009. According to him, the appellate Authority ought to have, therefore, granted an injunction as was sought for. 4/- The perusal of the order passed by the appellate Court shows that the appellate Court has taken into consideration all the aspects and has 3 recorded the finding that the appellants/ plaintiffs have failed to establish the prima facie case, the balance of convenience does not lie in his favour and no irreparable loss would be caused if the injunction is refused to the appellants/plaintiffs. I have also gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. The findings of the trial Court on the question of title and possession are based upon the appreciation of evidence on record. The correctness of the same is under consideration before the appellate Court. Hence, without observing anything on merits of the matter, suffice it to say that the order of the appellate Court impugned in this appeal takes a possible view of the matter and hence no interference is called for. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE Rvjalit