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.