Mahadeo Bapurao Bidve And Others vs Balasaheb Narsing Bidve And ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 664 Bom

                                              1                         WP-2980.16




                                                                          
                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                  
                           BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 2980 OF 2016




                                                 
     1.       Mahadeo S/o Bapurao Bidve,
              Age: 75 years, Occu: Agril.,

     2.       Shankar S/o Bapurao Bidve,
              Age: 73 years, Occu: Agril.,




                                       
     3.       Dashrath S/o Bapurao Bidve,
              Age: 70 years, occu: Agril.,
                             
     4.       Shivaji S/o Bapurao Bidve,
              Age: 72 years, Occup. Agril.,
                            
     5.       Govind S/o Mahadeo Bidve,
              Age: 35 years, Occ: Agril.,

              All R/o Pimpalgaon- Ambad,
      

              Tq. And Dist. Latur.                         ...PETITIONERS
                                                           (Ori. Defendants)
   



              versus


     1.       Balasaheb S/o Narsing Bidve,





              Age : 49 years, Occu: Agril.,

     2.       Bankat S/o Rambhau Bidve,
              Age: 45 years, occu: Agril.,

     3.       Gangadhar S/o Shahurao Bidve,





              Age: 40 years, occu: Agril.,

              All R/o Pimpalgaon- Amba,
              Tq. And Dist. Latur.                         ...RESPONDENTS
                                                           (Ori. Plaintiffs)

                                      .....
     Mr. R.K. Ashtekar, Advocate for petitioners
     Mr. S.V. Natu, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3
                                      .....




    ::: Uploaded on - 16/03/2016                  ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:14:50 :::
                                                   2                         WP-2980.16


                                    CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED : 16th MARCH, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :-

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with consent of learned

advocates for parties heard, finally.

2. Present petition has been moved by original defendants against

judgment and order dated 29-01-2016 in miscellaneous civil appeal No.

32 of 2015 passed by District Judge - 1, Latur confirming the order

dated 28-04-2015 below Exhibit-5 in regular civil suit no. 08 of 2015

passed by 2nd joint civil judge, junior division, Latur, whereunder

application for temporary injunction of present respondents - original

plaintiffs has been allowed.

3. Learned counsel for petitioners vehemently urges to stay the

effect and operation of order dated 28-04-2015 below Exhibit-5 in

regular civil suit no. 08 of 2015 passed by 2 nd joint civil judge, junior

division, Latur. It is being contended by the petitioners that right of

way pursuant to section 143(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue

Code, 1966 for access to their land bearing Gut No. 191 has been

granted by Tahsildar. Said order has been challenged in regular civil

suit no. 08 of 2015 which is pending before civil judge, junior division,

Latur. Respondents - plaintiffs had also filed application for temporary

injunction in said suit.

4. After discussing the matter and looking at pros and cons, the

trial court under order dated 28-04-2015 granted the application for

3 WP-2980.16

temporary injunction of plaintiffs - present respondents and restrained

the appellants - original defendants from creating any road in suit land

and also from interfering and obstructing in the possession and

enjoyment of plaintiffs over the suit land and further restrained from

causing damage to the standing crops in the suit land till disposal of

the suit. Said order has been confirmed under judgment and order

29-01-2016 in miscellaneous civil appeal No. 32 of 2015 by District

Judge - 1, Latur.

5.

Looking at the reasons which had weighed with the trial court as

contained in paragraphs No. 11, 12 and 13 of its judgment and the

same having been endorsed by the appellate court, I do not think

prima facie case is made out for interference in judicial discretion

exercised by trial as well as appellate courts. Writ petition, as such, is

not being entertained.

6. Writ petition, as such, stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged.

7. However, at this stage parties to the suit fairly agree upon that

the suit deserves expeditious disposal. In view of the same, 2 nd joint

civil judge, junior division, Latur, shall dispose of regular civil suit no.

08 of 2015 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of

six months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. It is expected

that parties would cooperate the court for expeditious disposal of suit.

Sd/-

( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. ) MTK