Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1
PETITIONER:
CHANDRASHEKHAR GAJANAN BHOGAONKAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
YESHWANT DHONDI POTDAR AND OTHERS
DATE OF JUDGMENT28/08/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 SCC (6) 544 1995 SCALE (5)234
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Notice was issued with a view to impress upon the
parties to settle the dispute amicably and learned counsel
for the respondents in fairness submitted that he is not
informed about the settlement and, therefore, he is unable
to impress upon them to enter into any compromise.
Mr. A.S. Bhasme, learned counsel for the appellant,
contended on merits that the trial court was wrong in its
conclusion that the appellant is not in possession of the
land. We do not want to go into the controversy as to who is
in possession of the land. It is true that the trial court
on prima facie evidence found that the appellant was in
possession of the land. It was further found that
irreparable injury would be caused to him if ad interim
injunction is granted. On appeal, the District Judge re-
appreciated the evidence and came to the conclusion that the
appellant is not in possession of the land. High Court did
not interfere on being approached under Article 227.
At this stage, it is not desirable to go into the
merits of the case and the findings of the courts below,
which would have adverse effect on the respective interests
of the parties. The issue was of prima facie case and of
balance of convenience to grant or to refuse ad interim
injunction.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.