Honble SHETHNA, J.–Learned counsel Mr. Nagori vehemently submitted that the First Appellate Court committed a grave error in interfering with the order passed by the Trial Court confirming the interim order passed by it restraining the respondents from interfering with the possession over the land in question of the petitioner. He submitted that the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is undisputedly an owner of the land in question, therefore, while confirming its earlier ex-parte order vide its order dated 9.6.94, the Trial Court ordered to remove the standing crop cultivated by the respondents on the land in question of the petitioner. He, therefore, submitted that it was not open to the First Appellate Authority to interfere with such a discretionary order passed by the trial Court in appeal. He also submitted that the first Appellate Authority has also come to the conclusion that the petitioner was the owner of the land in question. In that view of the matter, the First Appellate Court should not have interfered with such discretionary order. He also submitted that the Board of Revenue expressed its helplessness in interfering with the order passed by the Fi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document