Bombay High Court
Jijabrao Shankar Patil And Others vs Grampanchayat Through Its ... on 8 August, 2017
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
{1} wp230-16
drp
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.230 OF 2016
1. Jijabrao s/o Shankar Patil PETITIONERS
Age - 54 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Wadali Digar, Taluka - Jamner
District - Jalgaon
2. Sahebrao s/o Shankar Patil,
Age - 50 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Wadali Digar, Taluka - Jamner
District - Jalgaon
3. Dilip Narayan Patil,
Age - 45 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Wadali Digar, Taluka - Jamner
District - Jalgaon
4. Shivaji Tukaram More
Age - 35 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Wadali Digar, Taluka - Jamner
District - Jalgaon
VERSUS
1. Gram Panchayat (Wadali Digar) RESPONDENTS
Through its Sarpancha,
Taluka - Jamner, District - Jalgaon
2. Sarpanch Gram Panchayat (Wadali Digar)
R/o Jamner, District - Jalgaon
3. Sau. Chitra Pratap Dahivelkar,
Age - 35 years, Occ - Household
R/o Plot No. 103, S. No. 412,
Nehru Nagar ,Mohadi Road,
Jalgaon, District - Jalgaon
4. Reshmabai Shankar Patil
Age - 70 years, Occ - Agriculture
R/o Wadali Digar, Taluka - Jamner
District - Jalgaon
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2017 02:03:08 :::
{2} wp230-16
.......
Mr. S. D. Hiwrekar, Advocate for the petitioners
Mr. P. B. Shinde, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2
.......
[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
DATE : 8th AUGUST, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with
consent of learned advocates for the appearing parties.
2. Petitioners are plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 141 of
2010 instituted for injunction against present respondents No. 1
to 4 in respect of suit property. During pendency of suit, plaint
had undergone some amendment and while subsequently, while
plaintiffs claim to have come in possession of certain documents,
relevant to and which may have bearing in the matter,
amendment pursuant to the same had been sought by filing
application Exhibit-73 in Regular Civil Suit No. 141 of 2010. Said
application Exhibit-73 for amendment has been rejected by Civil
Judge, Junior Division, Jamner under order dated 8 th October,
2010 and thus, the petitioners-plaintiffs are before this court.
3. It is the contention of learned advocate for the petitioners
that only issues have been framed in the suit and yet trial has
{3} wp230-16
not commenced, still the court has observed that trial has
commenced in the present suit. He submits that the other
reason which had weighed with the court is extraneous one.
4. Learned advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2 does not
have any particular instructions in respect of stage in the suit.
Other respondents have not put in their appearance though have
been served twice in the matter, once intimating that the matter
is likely to be disposed of finally. Yet, despite service they have
chosen to remain absent. Submissions of learned advocate for
the petitioners are that beyond framing of issues matter has not
travelled further and as such, trial has not commenced, go
uncontroverted.
5. In view of aforesaid, I deem it appropriate that writ
petition be allowed in the interest of justice.
6. Writ petition, as such, stands allowed. Impugned order
dated 8th October, 2015 on Exhibit - 73 in Regular Civil Suit No.
141 of 2010 pending before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jamner
stands set aside. Application Exhibit-73 stands allowed. Rule is
made absolute in aforesaid terms.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]
drp/wp230-16
