Bombay High Court
Mansurbi Wahid Sayyed vs Jagdishchandra Narayan Mundada ... on 17 March, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP-9625.15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 9625 OF 2015
Mansurbi Wahid Sayyed
Age: 55 years, Occu. Agri and Household,
R/o Shiradhon, Tq. Kalamb,
Dist. Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER
Versus
1. Jagdishchandra Narayan Mundada
Age: 68 years, Occu. Agril.,
2.
Pawan Prakashchandra Mundada
Age: 22 years, Occu. Agril.,
Both R/o. Shiradhon, Tq. Kalamb,
Dist. Osmanabad ...RESPONDENTS
.....
Mr. A. V. Patil h/f Mr. S. P. Dhobale, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. A. T. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondent No.2
.....
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 17th MARCH, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel
for the parties finally, by consent.
2. Petitioner purports to question legality, propriety and
validity of series of orders passed in the proceedings initiated
before the revenue authorities.
2 WP-9625.15
3. It is the case of petitioner that while suit is pending for
partition and separate possession bearing Regular Civil Suit
No. 310 of 2009, an application for interim and temporary
injunction had been moved having regard to the activity by
defendants to alienate the property which was likely to create
some difficulties. During pendency of temporary injunction
application, the alienation has taken place in favour of present
respondents. Pursuant to said transaction, mutations were
sought and were granted against which present petitioner had
moved revenue appeal, which failed and against the same
revision had been filed before the Commissioner, which too
has been rejected. As such, the present writ petition has been
filed.
4. It is submitted on behalf of petitioner that the hasty
conduct of respondents is surprising and as such, is required
to be suitably dealt with. He submits that despite pendency
of temporary injunction application the sale deed has been
executed and even the mutations pursuant to the same have
taken place. He submits that revenue authorities have dealt
with the matter touching the property in respect of which suit
is pending between the parties.
3 WP-9625.15
5. On the other hand, Mr. Aashish Jadhavar, learned
counsel for respondent No.2 points out that various aspects
involved in the matter and submits that the respondents
pursuant to the sale-deed have been put in possession. He
submits that temporary injunction application (Exhibit-5) filed
by petitioner - plaintiff had been rejected, an appeal
therefrom also met with same fate. Subsequently, plaintiffs
filed application ig Exhibit 28 seeking restraint on the
defendants from alienating the suit property. Said application
was allowed. However, said order was reversed in an appeal.
He further submits that owing to obstruction by present
petitioner, respondents filed Regular Civil Suit No. 473 of 2012
for perpetual injunction along with temporary injunction
application. Said application was rejected, however, in appeal
at the instance of present respondents, the order of refusal of
injunction by trial court was reversed. Writ petition No. 7149
of 2013 filed by defendants in said suit against order of
District Court was also dismissed on 17-10-2013.
6. Taking into account aforesaid position and that civil suit
is pending in respect of suit property, whatever entries which
have taken place in respect of the same, would be subject to
decision in the civil suit. As such, no interference is called for
4 WP-9625.15
in the orders which are sought to be challenged before this
court in the writ petition.
7. Writ petition, as such, stands dismissed. Rule stands
discharged.
ig ( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )
sms
