Bombay High Court
Shri Digambar S/O Dattarao ... vs Smt. Chandrabhagabai @Kasibai ... on 14 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp5223.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5223/2014
1. Shri Digambar S/o Dattarao Rakhunde,
aged about 58 Yrs., Occu. Retired
and Agriculturist, Power of Attorney
for petitioner Nos.2 and 3.
2. Shri Chandrashekhar S/o Digambar Rakhunde,
aged 25 Yrs., Occu. Agriculture and
Service.
3. Shri Sarang S/o Digambar Rakhunde,
aged about 22 Yrs., Occu. Agriculturist
and Service.
All R/o Manik Nagar, Nanded,
Tq. and Distt. Nanded. ..Petitioners.
..Versus..
1. Smt. Chandrabhagabai @ Kasibai
Wd/o Narayanrao Kharate,
aged about 54 Yrs., Occu. Household
and Agriculturist.
2. Shri Bandu S/o Narayanrao Kharate,
aged about 39 Yrs., Occu. Service.
3. Shri Sanjay S/o Narayanrao Kharate,
aged about 36 Yrs., Occu. Service.
4. Shri Shivaji S/o Narayanrao Kharate,
aged about 33 Yrs., Occu. Advocate.
All R/o Ward No.15, Nawalbaba Ward,
Pusad, Tq. Pusad, Distt. Yavatmal.
5. Sau. Neeta w/o Uday Magar,
aged about 35 Yrs., Occu. Household,
R/o Dhankeshwar Nagar, Pusad,
::: Uploaded on - 20/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 05:21:16 :::
2 wp5223.14
Tq. and Distt. Yavatmal.
Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 5
through respondent No.2 being their
Special Power of Attorney. ..Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------
Shri C.S. Captan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri P.S. Chawhan, Advocate for the
petitioners.
Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
ig DATE : 14.6.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri C.S. Captan, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri P.S. Chawhan,
Advocate for the petitioners and Shri R.L. Khapre, Advocate for the respondents.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioners take exception to the order passed by the subordinate Courts
concurrently upholding the claim of the respondents for grant of temporary injunction
restraining the petitioners from obstructing the respondents from using suit way till
the disposal of the civil suit.
It is undisputed before this Court that the respondents are using the suit way,
though this Court stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order on 26 th
September, 2014.
Considering the above fact, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned
3 wp5223.14
orders at this stage. In my view, the interests of justice would be sub-served by
passing the following order:
(i) The trial Court shall dispose the Regular Civil Suit No.6/2009 and Regular
Civil Suit No.93/2009 which is filed by the petitioners, till 6 th January, 2017.
(ii) The temporary injunction granted by the trial Court and maintained by the
District Court shall operate till the disposal of the civil suit.
(iii) The petition is disposed in the above terms.
(iv) In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
