RAMDAS SHANKARRAO DHUMAL Vs. AJAY SHANKARRAO DHUMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by District Judge-2, Kopargaon below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Appeal No.40/2016 on 4th August, 2016 is challenged in the present appeal. ig The parties to the present appeal are referred to by their original status in the civil suit.

(2.) Facts, in brief are thus, - Plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid appeal challenging the Judgment and order passed by Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Rahata on 21st April, 2016 in Regular Civil Suit No.131/2013. The plaintiffs had filed the aforesaid suit seeking perpetual injunction against the defendants, restraining them from disturbing possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties. In the aforesaid civil suit, the plaintiffs had also prayed for interim injunction. The said application was rejected by the trial court. The plaintiffs preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No.2/2015 against the said order before the District Court. The District Court allowed the said appeal and granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiffs thereby restraining the defendants from obstructing the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit properties till decision of the said suit. The order passed by the District court was challenged by the defendants before this Court by filing writ petition No. 659/2015. This court, however, did not cause any interference in the order passed by the District Court. Thereafter, the suit was proceeded further and after having assessed the oral as well as documentary evidence brought on record before it, the learned trial court, vide its judgment delivered on 21st April, 2016, dismissed the said suit. Aggrieved by, the plaintiffs have filed the aforesaid Regular Civil Appeal in the district court at Kopargaon. In appeal, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking interim injunction thereby restraining the defendants from disturbing their alleged possession over the suit properties till decision of the appeal. The application was strongly resisted by the defendants. The learned District Judge however has allowed the said application vide order dated 4th August, 2016. The defendants have preferred the present Appeal against the said Order.

(3.) Shri P.M.Shah, learned Sr.Counsel appearing for the appellants, assailed the impugned order on various grounds. The learned Sr.Counsel submitted that in spite of a clear finding recorded by the learned trial court after a full-fledged trial that the plaintiffs could not prove their exclusive possession over the suit properties, drawing some erroneous inferences the District Court has granted the interim injunction vide the impugned order.