Vishweshwar Dagdu Vibhute And ... vs Gajendra Girdhari Vibhute
2016 Latest Caselaw 1180 Bom

                                        1                      WP-11027.15


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                       
                         BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                               
                        WRIT PETITION NO. 11027 OF 2015




                                              
     1.       Vishweshwar s/o Dagdu Vibhute
              Age: 61 years, Occu. Agril,
              R/o. Ghatangri, Ta. Osmanabad,
              Dist. Osmanabad




                                     
     2.       Umakant s/o Dagdu Vibhute
              Age: 56 years, occu. Agril.,
                             
              R/o. Ghatangri, Ta. Osmanabad,
              Dist. Osmanabad
                            
     3.       Bharat s/o Dagdu Vibhute,
              Age: 51 years, occu. Agril,
              R/o. Ghatangri, Ta. Osmanabad,
              Dist. Osmanabad
      


     4.       Sanjay s/o Dagdu Vibhute
              Age: 46 years, Occu. Agril,
   



              R/o. Ghatangri, Ta. Osmanabad,
              Dist. Osmanabad

     5.       Vishal s/o Vishweshwar Vibhute





              Age: 28 years, Occu. Agril,
              R/o. Ghatangri, Ta and Dist.Osmanabad

     6.       Sandip s/o Umakant Vibhute
              Age: 26 years, Occu. Agril,
              R/o. Ghatangri, Ta. and Dist. Osmanabad





     7.       Sagar s/o Umakant Vibhute,
              Age: 23 years, Occu. Agril,
              R/o. Ghatangri, Ta. Osmanabad,
              Dist. Osmanabad                         ...PETITIONERS
                                                  (Orig. Defendants)




    ::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2016               ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 20:58:41 :::
                                          2                       WP-11027.15




                                                                         
              VERSUS

     Gajendra s/o Girdhari Vibhute




                                                 
     Age: 62 years, Occu. Agril and Business,
     R/o. Ghatangri, at present Tambari Vibhag,
     Osmanabad, Ta and Dist. Osmanabad          ...RESPONDENT
                                                 (Orig. Plaintiff)




                                                
                                    .....
     Mr. R. D. Biradar, Advocate for petitioners
     Mr. U. R. Awate, h/f Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for respondent
                                    .....




                                       
                              ig   CORAM :   SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 4th APRIL, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally

with consent of the parties.

2. Respondent has instituted proceeding bearing Regular

Civil Suit No. 474 of 2014, before Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Osmanabad, seeking injunction in respect of the property as

stated in the plaint and in prayer clauses. Along with plaint,

the respondent-plaintiff had filed application Exhibit-5 for

temporary injunction, which came to be rejected by the trial

court. However, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.98 of 2014,

3 WP-11027.15

Principal District Judge, Osmanabad, allowed the same and

granted injunction as prayed for in Exhibit-5.

3. It appears that some mutation entries bearing No. 333

and 334 dated 11th November, 1971 had been taken, which

were produced by present petitioners-defendants, wherein, it

is contended by petitioners that, in the family partition among

his family members viz. him, brother and father, the suit land

is not shown to have fallen to the share of plaintiff, whereas,

it appears to the contention on behalf of plaintiff that after

purchase of the suit land from father of defendants No. 1 to 4

by brother of plaintiff, there have been certain events, which

have occurred and that a family partition had taken place in

1992 and accordingly suit land came to the share of the

plaintiff and the plaintiff is possessing the suit land since

then.

4. Perusal of the orders passed by the trial court on

Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction and the order in

Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 98 of 2014 shows that, prima-

facie quite a few documents, depict, since 1971, the suit

property is in possession of plaintiff's erstwhile family and the

consolidation record also shows same and revenue record as

4 WP-11027.15

well as consolidation record, prima-facie shows the plaintiff to

be in possession.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners Mr. Biradar contends

that the plaintiff claims an area of 56 Aar as suit land whereas

the sale-deed refers to only 50 Aar. However, it is a matter,

which would be relevant for consideration during trial of the

suit. At the stage of granting temporary injunction, such a

contention in the face of record which has been considered by

the appellate court, may not be of significance. It is for the

parties to prove their respective cases. Having regard to the

record which has been placed along with the temporary

injunction application, the decision rendered by the appellate

court is not liable to be interfered with and it cannot be said

to be a perverse decision.

6. In view of that, I am not inclined to interfere with the

order passed by appellate court.

7. Writ petition, as such, is not being entertained and

stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.

8. Learned counsel Mr. Biradar requests that since the

issues have been framed, the suit may be directed to be

5 WP-11027.15

disposed of expeditiously. There is no objection by the

respondent-plaintiff for expeditious disposal of the suit.

9. Having regard to aforesaid, trial court may proceed with

and decide the suit as expeditiously as possible preferably

within a period of one year from the date of receipt of writ of

this order.

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )

sms