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 : 24th 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 2026:BHC-AUG:43835 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..