The court's decision emphasized the importance of basing judgments on the material available on record and avoiding perversity or illegality in the decision-making process.

ORDER :

1. Present petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 06.07.2021 passed below Exh.12 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 02 of 2021 by the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodinar for not granting interim injunction against the respondent with respect to the cattle shed slopping land bearing Survey No. 46 paiki 2 admeasuring 01 Hector - 72 Acre - 43 sq.mtrs. of village : Morvad, Taluka Kodinar.

2. The brief facts of the present case are as under:

2.1 The petitioner and the respondent are the brothers. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 1401 of 2019 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kodinar against the respondent herein pertains to the land bearing Survey No. 46 paiki 2, admeasuring 01 Hector - 72 Acre - 43 sq.mtrs. of village: Morvad, Taluka Kodinar and prays for interim injunction by praying various prayers more particularly, the prayer that the respondent may not create any disturbance and also restrict the respondent from using and occupying the agricultural land, the gate, garage, slopping land and residential houses.

2.2 Learned trial Court has heard the submissions made at the bar and after considering the rival submissions, dismissed the Exh.5 application by way of impugned judgment and order dated 25.02.2021.

2.3 Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with that order, the present petitioner ha preferred the Civil Misc. Appeal No. 02 of 2021 before the learned 2nd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodinar under the provisions of Order 43 Rule 1(r) read with Section-104 of C.P.C. The learned lower appellate Court after recording the findings on the issue involved, which pertains to the injunction prayed by the petitioner in Exh.5 application, has partly allowed the appeal by granting relief pertains to land bearing Survey No. 46 paiki 2, admeasuring 01 Hector - 72 Acre - 43 sq.mtrs. of village : Morvad except the slopping which is existing in front of the premises and therefore, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

3. Heard Mr. P.J. Kanabar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. H.R. Prajapati, learned advocate appearing for the respondent.

4. Mr. P.J. Kanabar, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the learned lower appellate Court has totally ignored the materials available on record and has passed an erroneous order. He has further submitted that though the learned lower appellate Court has found anything in favour of the present petitioner in the impugned judgment, but in the petty portion, the learned lower appellate Court has completely erred by not granting full relief as prayed in Exh.5 application and by excluding the premises pertains to sloping portion in from of the gate of the land in question. He has further submitted that various documents are produced on record, which shows that prior to the filing of the suit, the petitioner has approached the Executive Magistrate, where, there is come findings in favour of the present petitioner regarding the disputed land. He further submitted that pursuant to the family arrangement, the land in question, which is subject matter of the petitioner, is undisputably claimed the share of the present petitioner and the respondent has no business to interfere with the said area, as the respondent has also received his share by way of getting any agricultural land. He has further submitted that the learned lower appellant court has erred in law by believing version, which is put forth by way of affidavit and also, by giving weightage to the report of the Court Commissioner which is call from the record and as per his submission that such process is carried out subsequent to filing of the present suit with a view to create some evidence in favour of the respondent. The affidavit, which is filed in support of the case of the respondent is filed after the suit is filed and therefore, it should