Bombay High Court
Raosaheb Bapu Bhavar And Others vs Bhaskar Gundiba Maske And Others on 9 August, 2017
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
WP/7608/2015
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 7608 OF 2015
1. Raosaheb Bapu Bhavar,
Age 39 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Desur, Tq. Ashti,
District Beed.
2. Balu Bapu Bhavar,
Age 36 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Desur, Tq. Ashti,
District Beed.
3. Ramhari s/o Uttam Bhavar
Age 62 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Desur, Tq. Ashti,
District Beed.
4. Bhausaheb s/o Uttam Bhavar
Age 47 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Desur, Tq. Ashti,
District Beed.
5. Ashok s/o Vithal Bhavar,
Age 51 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Desur, Tq. Ashti,
District Beed. ..Petitioners
Versus
1. Bhaskar Gundiba Maske
Age 64 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Desur, Tq. Ashti,
District Beed.
2. Dinkar Gundiba Maske
Age 67 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Desur, Tq. Ashti,
District Beed.
3. Subhash Bhaskar Maske
Age 34 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Desur, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed.
::: Uploaded on - 11/08/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 12/08/2017 02:10:02 :::
WP/7608/2015
2
4. Balu Bhaskar Maske
Age 27 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Desur, Tq. Ashti,
District Beed.
5. Dnyanoba Dinkar Maske
Age 41 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Desur, Tq. Ashti,
District Beed.
6. Baban Dinkar Maske
Age 30 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Desur, Tq. Ashti,
District Beed. ..Respondents
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Gaware Niteen V.
Advocate for Respondents : Shri Tungar Hrishikesh V.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Dated: August 09, 2017
...
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.
2. Rule.
3. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the
petition is taken up for final disposal.
4. The petitioners are aggrieved by the judgment and order
dated 4.4.2015, passed by the appellate Court in Misc. Civil
WP/7608/2015
Appeal No.94 of 2014, by which, the temporary injunction
granted in favour of the petitioners / plaintiffs has been vacated
and application Exhibit 5 has been rejected.
5. Shri Gaware learned Advocate for the plaintiffs has
strenuously criticized the impugned judgment. He relies upon the
7/12 extract dated 14.6.2017 and contends that the plaintiffs are
in possession of the suit land.
6. He further contends that when temporary injunction was
granted by the trial Court, the appellate Court could not have
interfered with the said order, merely because a second view is
possible.
7. Shri Tungar, learned Advocate for the respondents /
defendants also places on record certain revenue entries to
canvass that the defendants are in possession of the suit land and
they are cultivating the land which is in their possession. The
defendants have also obtained the copies of the 7/12 extracts on
15.6.2017.
8. The situation is quite peculiar. The revenue records do
not conclusively indicate, atleast on paper, as to which litigating
WP/7608/2015
side is in possession. Revenue Records would be distinct from the
fact of a party having actual possession of the suit land and
resorting to agricultural activities. The matter before the trial
Court in RCS No.1369 of 2013 is at the stage of evidence. The
petitioners are without any injunction from 4.4.2015, which is
the date of the judgment of the appellate Court, as this Court has
not granted any relief to the petitioners. The Appellate Court has
held in favour of the defendants.
9. Considering the above, though I am disposing off this
petition without causing an interference in the impugned
judgment, I deem it proper to observe that the trial Court may
resort to Section 75 with Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC for
seeking the assistance of a Court Commissioner, if it so desires.
The litigating sides shall extend their cooperation to the trial
Court for an expeditious disposal of the suit and shall refrain
from seeking adjournments on unreasonable grounds. The trial
Court will endeavour to decide the said suit as expeditiously as
possible and preferably on/or before 31.5.2018.
10. Since the injunction granted to the petitioner has been
vacated and the Appellate Court has concluded that the plaintiffs
have not made out any case for injunction, the status existing
WP/7608/2015
today, post vacating of the injunction, to be maintained.
11. In the result, the Writ Petition stands disposed and Rule is
discharged.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )
...
akl/d
