Shaikh Mahemmud Shaikh Akbar v. Mohammad Anis Gulam Rasul
2026:BHC-AUG:13850 (1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 13997 OF 2025 SHAIKH MAHEMMUD SHAIKH AKBAR
VERSUS
MOHAMMAD ANIS GULAM RASUL ...
Mr. Suresh W. Munde and Ms. Priyanka R Dubey, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. G. R. Syed, Advocate for Respondent.
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 30th MARCH, 2026.
P.C.:- 1.
The present Writ Petition takes exception to order dated 30.09.2025 passed by Extra Joint District Judge, Nanded in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.17/2025, whereby order dated 10.02.2025 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded in Regular Civil Suit No.150/2024, thereby temporarily restraining respondent from interfering and obstructing in possession of petitioner/plaintiff over suit property has been quashed and set aside.
2.
The petitioner is plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.150/2024. He sought decree of perpetual injunction against respondent contending that suit land was purchased by him under registered sale deed dated 13.06.2011 from one Ranjitsing Majorsing Goraya. Consequently, mutation entry was taken in his name in revenue record. His name is appearing in 7/12 extract in pursuance to Mutation Entry No.387 dated 20.07.2015. The respondent has no
(2) concerned with suit property. However, he is interfering in petitioner's possession. The petitioner has also filed an application below Exhibit-5 seeking temporary injunction. Earlier Trial Court after considering rival contentions, passed order granting temporary injunction in favour of petitioner. However, in Appeal filed by respondent, District Judge reversed Trial Court's order. The District Judge appears to have impressed on fact that Mutation Entry No.1069 was effected on 16.12.2023 based on sale deed dated 09.06.2011 on the basis of which petitioner is claiming his right. The learned District Judge has further observed that vendor of petitioner namely Ranjitsingh Goraya filed affidavit that he has not executed sale deed in favour of petitioner. 3.
Mr. Munde, learned Advocate appearing for petitioner placed before this Court copy of Mutation Entry No.387, which depicts that it has been effected on 20.07.2015 and since then, petitioner's name is continuously shown as owner of suit property. Apparently, sale deed relied by petitioner is executed in year 2011 and same is not challenged by respondent or any one before Competent Court. Even vendor of petitioner has never challenged to sale deed or mutation entry. Eventually, Trial Court has rightly observed that prima facie petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of suit property and balance of convenience is in his favour. The Appellate Court
(3) appears to have erroneously interpreted document of mutation entry and disturbed well reasoned order passed by Trial Court. 4.
It is trite that, Miscellaneous Civil Appeal cannot be entertained on facts. The discretion exercised by Trial Court cannot be interfered unless perversity is brought to notice of Appellate Court. Such is not case here. In light of observations of Supreme Court in case of Wander Ltd. And Anr. Vs. Antox India P. Ltd.1, jurisdiction of Appellate Court while entertaining Appeal against order is limited. The Appellate Court appears to have exceeded jurisdiction while reversing order of Trial Court. 5.
In result, Writ Petition succeeds and allowed in terms of prayer Clause (B).
6.
The order dated 10.02.2025 passed by 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded in Regular Civil Suit No.150/2024 is restored.
7.
The learned Advocate appearing for respondents seeks to stay effect of this order for period of six weeks. However, for reasons as recorded, prayer stands rejected.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/March-2026 1990 SCC (Suppl.) 727.