1 wp 6702.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6702 OF 2011 Hemlata Madhukarrao Deshmukh .. Petitioner Versus Nirmala Ramsingh Ghorpade .. Respondent Shri R. M. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri P. S. Shendurnikar, Advocate for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 26TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT : . The petitioner is the original plaintiff, who had filed suit for injunction. The defendant also filed counter claim regarding injunction. The plaintiff and defendants both moved application for temporary injunction. The Trial Court allowed the application of the plaintiff and rejected the application of the defendant. Aggrieved thereby the defendant preferred an appeal. The District Court allowed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff has filed the present petition. 2 wp 6702.11 2. Shri Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the registered agreement of sale is executed in favour of the petitioner. There is recital of delivery of possession. Even the consideration amount has been parted. The same is required to be accepted. The execution of the document is not denied. Even the receipt of consideration is also not disputed. In view of that the learned counsel submits that the plaintiff is entitled for injunction. The learned counsel relies on the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in a case of Venkat Dharmaji Gontalwar Vs. Vishwanath and another reported in AIR 1983 Bombay 413. The learned counsel further contends that even the mutation entry was effected in favour of the plaintiff, though the same is cancelled, an appeal is pending. 3. Per contra Shri Shendurnikar, the learned counsel submits that the defendant has denied the nature of the document. She has also denied the receipt of the total consideration as claimed by the plaintiff. In fact, the mutation entry was effected during the pendency of suit. The same is also set aside. Even if the agreement is of the year 2006, the name of the petitioner was not recorded till the year 2009. Even the crop inspection panchanama is made which shows that the defendant was 3 wp 6702.11 cultivating the land. The crop insurance is also made by the defendant. Even the revenue Court has held the possession of the defendant. In view of that the learned counsel submits that the District Court has properly considered all the aspects. 4. No doubt, there is registered agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner. The nature of the document is disputed. If there is no other attending circumstance, then the said recital in the document shall be considered as it is, more particularly if the execution is admitted. But in the present case, the District Court has relied on the crop insurance made by the defendant. So also the panchanama done by the talathi and the certificate of cultivation issued by the revenue authorities which is after panchanama been effected. Even the revenue record does not prima facie establish the possession of the petitioner. The judgment in a case of Venkat Dharmaji Gontalwar referred supra cannot be applicable in the present case, in view of the other attending evidence and the circumstances. 5. Even the view taken by the Court below is plausible, which need not be interfered in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is 4 wp 6702.11 dismissed, however, no order as to costs. 6. Needless to state the observations made herein are prima facie in nature and the Trial Court shall decide the suit on its own merits on the basis of evidence adduced by the patries. The Trial Court shall deal with the suit expeditiously and decide the same within a period of six (6) months from today. [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Sept. 11