Rajkamal S/O Ramnarayan Agrawal vs Sagar S/O Subhash Bhokre
2017 Latest Caselaw 5549 Bom

                                                       1

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 4271 OF 2017
Rajkamal s/o Ramnarayan Agrawal,
aged about 60 years, occupation :
business, r/o Sadanand Ward, Khadkpura,
Umarkhed, Tahsil Umarkhed, District :
Yavatmal.                                                  ...              Petitioner 

                  - Versus -

Sagar s/o Subhash Bhokre,
aged about 29 years, occupation :
agriculturist, r/o Nivagha (B), 
Tahsil Hatgaon, District Nanded, 
at present - Sadanand Ward, 
Khadkpura, Umarkhed, Tahsil :
Umarkhed, District Yavatmal.                               ...              Respondent
                                   -----------------
Shri G.M. Kubade, Advocate for petitioner. 
Shri S.D. Dharaskar, Advocate holding for Shri K.S. Narwade, Advocate for
respondent.  
                       ----------------

                                          CORAM :   P.N. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED : AUGUST 3, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of

Shri Kubade, learned Counsel for petitioner, and Shri Dharaskar, learned

Counsel holding for Shri K.S. Narwade, learned Counsel for respondent.

2) Prayer in this petition is to quash and set aside order dated

20/1/2017 passed by learned Ad hoc District Judge-1, Pusad in Misc. Civil

Appeal No.22/2016 preferred by petitioner against rejection of his

application for temporary injunction in Regular Civil Suit No.50/2016 by

learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Umarkhed on 24/6/2016.

3) It is the case of petitioner that he has filed a suit seeking

perpetual and mandatory injunction against respondent alleging that

respondent had constructed house in contravention to the permission

granted to him by competent Authority, upon which complaint was made

by petitioner and thus, notices were issued to respondent under

Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.

Respondent did not act upon same and thus, above civil suit was filed by

petitioner. However, learned trial Court rejected the application of

petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. Admittedly, miscellaneous

civil appeal against said rejection also came to be dismissed by learned

District Judge.

4) Considering the facts involved in the petition as aforesaid,

Shri Kubade, learned Counsel for petitioner, by referring to notices issued

to respondent by Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Umarkhed at

Annexures B and C to the petition with regards to alleged illegal

construction activity carried out by respondent has submitted that

direction may be issued to learned trial Court to expeditiously decide the

suit.

5) No reply of respondent is on record. However,

Shri Dharaskar, learned Counsel for respondent, has supported the

proposal as put forth by Shri Kubade, learned Counsel for petitioner, as

aforesaid.

6) Considering the fact that admittedly notices are issued by the

competent Authority to respondent with regards to alleged illegal

construction, the issue involved in the petition can be decided only on

leading evidence by both the sides. In that view of the matter, petition is

disposed of with direction to learned Civil Judge, Junior Division,

Umarkhed to decide Regular Civil Suit No.50/2016 expeditiously.

7) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to

costs.

JUDGE

khj