LAKSHMAN BABANRAO JADHAVversusRAMESHWAR ASHOK KARDAK AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:43835

                                           1                         6.WP-3911-2022.doc



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 3911 OF 2022
                         LAKSHMAN BABANRAO JADHAV
                                  VERSUS
                      RAMESHWAR ASHOK KARDAK AND OTHERS
                                               …
                     Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shaikh Tarek Mobin H.
                                              …
                                               CORAM      : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.
                                                 DATE     : 24 th SEPTEMBER 2026

              PER COURT :
              1.        The present petition is filed challenging the order dated
              07.12.2019 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division,
              Vaijapur, below Exhibit-5 in RCC No. 196 of 2019, whereby the
              Petitioners   (original   Defendants)   have   been    restrained    from
              disturbing the possession of the Plaintiffs/Respondents over the suit
              property. The petition also challenges the judgment and order dated
              13.01.2022 passed by the learned District Judge-1, Vaijapur,
              dismissing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2019 arising out of
              the said order of temporary injunction. The contention of the learned
              Advocate for the Petitioners is that the father of the Plaintiffs, namely
              Ashok, purchased 4.5 Gunthas of land from Gut No. 272 under two
              separate sale deeds dated 25.02.2004 and 05.07.2005. It is
              contended that Ashok, the deceased father of the Plaintiffs, sold 1.5
              Gunthas of land to one Ramnath Jadhav under a sale deed dated
              23.06.2009 and the remaining 3 Gunthas of land to the Defendants
                            2                          6.WP-3911-2022.doc



under a sale deed dated 14.03.2011. It is further the contention of
the Defendants that, apart from the said 3 Gunthas of land, they also
purchased 1 Guntha of land under the sale deed dated 14.03.2011
from Ganesh, the real brother of Ashok, the Plaintiffs' father.


2.       The learned Trial Court granted temporary injunction in
favour of the Plaintiffs on the ground that the revenue record
pertaining to the suit property stands in the names of the Plaintiffs,
which prima facie establishes their possession over the suit property.
Apart from concurring with the reasons recorded by the learned trial
Court, the learned Appellate Court has also observed that the
boundaries of the suit property and those of the property purchased
by the Defendants are different. The learned Appellate Court has
further referred to the spot panchanama dated 04.10.2019 prepared
by the Talathi and Circle Inspector upon visiting the suit property.
The said spot panchanama shows that the Plaintiffs were found to be
in possession of the suit property.


3.       Both the Courts have taken a plausible view of the matter
based on the material available on record. It is well settled that a
Court entertaining an appeal against an order of temporary
injunction cannot substitute its own view merely because another
view is possible, so long as the view taken by the learned Trial Court
is a plausible one. The scope of interference in an appeal arising out
of an order of temporary injunction is limited to examining whether
the parameters applied by the learned Trial Court while deciding the
                             3                          6.WP-3911-2022.doc



application are legally sustainable and whether the findings recorded
therein are perverse. If such is not the case, the Court entertaining
the appeal cannot interfere with the order passed by the learned Trial
Court on the application for temporary injunction. The scope of
interference in a petition cannot be wider than the scope of
interference in an appeal.


4.         In the present case, both the Courts have taken a possible
view of the matter upon appreciation of the material available on
record. This Court is not in a position to take a different view.


5.         The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.


6.         It is made clear that the observations made in the present
order are confined to examining the correctness of the order passed
below Exhibit-5 and shall not be binding upon the learned trial Court
while deciding the suit on its own merits.



                                               ROHIT W. JOSHI
                                                  JUDGE




NAJEEB..