Shaikh Badaroddin Shaikh ... vs Gramsevak G.P.Office Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 1589 Bom

                                                  1                      WP-155.16.doc




                                                                                   
                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                           
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 155 OF 2016



              Shaikh Badaroddin s/o Shaikh Mainoddin,




                                                          
              Age 50 years, occupation : Agriculture,
              R/o Konali, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur                    .. Petitioner

                               versus

     1.       Gramsevak, G. P. Office, Konali,




                                             
              Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur, through
              Baburao s/o Shankar Musle,
                             
              age 37 years, occup. Service,
              R/o Konali, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur

     2.       Sarpanch, G. P. Office, Konali,
                            
              Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur, through
              Arvind s/o Ramrao Patil,
              age 40 years, occup. Agril.
              R/o Konali, Tq. Deoni, Dist. Latur     .. Respondents
                           ---
      

              Mr. V. D. Sonwane, Advocate for petitioner
              Mr. M. G. Biradar, Advocate for respondents
   



                                        CORAM :       SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

                                        DATE :        16TH APRIL, 2016





     ORAL JUDGMENT :


     1.       Rule.    Rule made returnable forthwith.        Heard learned counsel





     for parties finally by consent.

2. Position emerges that regular civil suit no. 80 of 2014 was filed

by present petitioner against respondents before the court of Civil

Judge, Junior Division, Deoni, for perpetual injunction seeking restraint

on the respondents-defendants as prayed for in the plaint.

2 WP-155.16.doc

3. During pendency of suit, application for temporary injunction

had been moved which was rejected and appeal therefrom by plaintiff

also failed.

4. The learned counsel on either side, have argued the matter

extensively, however, looking at that the situation can be resolved

finally in the suit, seek directions for expeditious disposal of suit.

5. In view of above, parties to maintain status-quo with regard to

the Statue as on the date till disposal of suit. Suit be proceeded with

expeditiously and be decided preferably within a period of nine months

from the date of receipt of writ of this order.

6. Rule made absolute accordingly in aforesaid terms. Writ petition

stands disposed of.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE

pnd