Dr. Kishor Sharadrao Kondawar vs Gram Panchayat, Yavatmal Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 2537 Bom

     Judgment                                              1                                wp5746.14.odt




                                                                                       
                      
                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                                   NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                               
                                WRIT PETITION NO. 5746 OF 2014 




                                                              
     Dr. Kishor Sharadrao Kondawar,
     Aged 47 years, Occu.: Medical Practitioner,
     R/o. Near Bank of Maharashtra,




                                                
     Wani, Tq. Wani, Distt. Yavatmal. 
                                ig                                             ....  PETITIONER.

                                            //  VERSUS //
                              
     Gram Panchayat, Chikhalgaon,
     Through its Secretary, 
     Chikhalgaon, Tq. Wani, 
     Distt. Yavatmal.
      


                                                        .... RESPONDENT
                                                                         . 
   



      ___________________________________________________________________
     Shri U.J.Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioner.
     Shri Firdos Mirza, Advocate for Respondent. 
     ___________________________________________________________________





                                  CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : JUNE 06, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

2. RULE. Rule returnable forthwith.

Judgment 2 wp5746.14.odt

3. The petitioner has filed civil suit praying for decree for

permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the

possession of the plaintiff over the suit plot. The petitioner has filed

application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure

praying for temporary injunction. The learned trial Judge rejected the

application filed by the petitioner and the appeal filed by the petitioner

challenging the order passed by the trial Court is also dismissed. The

petitioner being aggrieved in the matter, has filed this writ petition.

This Court by order dated 31st October, 2014 directed issuance

of notice to the respondent and also directed the parties to maintain status-

quo until further orders.

4. According to the respondent, the suit plot is a public land

vesting in the respondent and the petitioner cannot claim title on the basis of

the sale deed executed in his favour by his predecessor in title. It is further

argued on behalf of the respondent that the petitioner has not placed any

document on record to substantiate that the petitioner is in possession of the

suit plot. The learned advocate for the respondent has submitted that the

orders passed by the subordinate Courts are proper and the concurrent

findings recorded by the subordinate Courts do not require any interference

by this Court.

Judgment 3 wp5746.14.odt

5. Looking to the facts of the case and the nature of controversy, in

my view, the interests of justice would be sub-served by passing the

following order :

i) The trial Court shall dispose the civil suit filed by the petitioner

till 14th September, 2016.

ii)

The interim order passed by this Court on 31st October, 2014

directing the parties to maintain status-quo shall continue till

14th September, 2016.

iii) If any of the party does not co-operate for disposal of the civil

suit within the stipulated time and the civil suit is not disposed

till 14th September, 2016, the trial Court shall again consider

the application filed by the petitioner/ plaintiff under Order 39

Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and pass further

orders taking into account the conduct of the parties and their

co-operation for disposal of the civil suit.

Shri F.T. Mirza, learned advocate for the respondent has

objected to this course on the ground that if the trial Court is

granted liberty to pass fresh orders on the application filed by

the petitioner / plaintiff under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the

Judgment 4 wp5746.14.odt

Code of Civil Procedure, it will have the effect of setting aside

the impugned orders.

In my view, the objection raised on behalf of the

respondent is not accepted as the trial Court is granted liberty

to pass further orders only to see that the plaintiff and the

defendant co-operate with the trial Court for disposal of the

civil suit.

The petition is disposed in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

RRaut..