Bombay High Court
Chandrakant Kalnu Lathad And ... vs Ganesh Mahadeo Thakare And ... on 28 September, 2016
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
wp5644.16.J.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.5644 OF 2016
1] Chandrakant Kalnu Lathad,
Aged 55 years,
Occ: Agriculturist.
2] Kalnu Vithoba Lathad,
Aged 83 years,
Occ: Agriculturist.
Both R/o Chondi, Tah. Patur,
Dist. Akola. ....... PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1] Ganesh Mahadeo Thakare,
Aged 55 years,
Occ: Agriculturist.
2] Kishore Ganesh Thakare,
Aged 38 years,
Occ: Agriculturist.
Both R/o Chondi, Tah. Patur,
Dist. Akola. ....... RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.D. Dhande, Advocate for Petitioners.
Shri U.J. Deshpande, Advocate for Respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
th SEPTEMBER, 2016.
DATE: 28
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of
the learned counsels appearing for the parties.
wp5644.16.J.odt 2/4
2] The challenge is to the order dated 12.08.2016 passed by
the trial court providing the police aid to the respondent in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the
reported decision of this Court in case of Smt. Nirabai J. Patil vs.
Narayan D. Patil in AIR 2004 Bom 225, certain guidelines are laid down
for providing police aid. The consideration of these guidelines is absent
in the order.
3]
Shri Dhande, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that there is already an order of injunction operating
against the petitioner not to disturb the possession of the respondent
over the suit field. He further submits that the police reports are to the
effect that the petitioner has not caused any obstruction. All these things
are required to be taken into consideration by the trial court.
Shri Dhande, the learned counsel submits that there is no question of
petitioner disturbing the possession of the respondent, particularly when
the order of injunction is operating against the petitioner.
4] In view of above, the order being cryptic and without
recording any reasons and without following the guidelines laid down by
this Court the same needs to be set aside.
5] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
wp5644.16.J.odt 3/4
12.08.2016 passed by the trial court in Regular Civil Suit No.76 of 2014
is hereby quashed and set aside.
The trial court shall reconsider the application in the light of the
decision of this Court and the documents placed on record and shall pass
an order in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
ig JUDGE
NSN
wp5644.16.J.odt 4/4
C E R T I F I C A T E
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and
correct copy of original signed Judgment."
Uploaded by : Uploaded on : 29.09.2016.
N.S. Nikhare, P.A.
