Rabiya Mohammad Shaikh And Others vs Ahmed Fatarubhai Shaikh
2017 Latest Caselaw 5941 Bom

                                    1                    WP-9587.16.doc


            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                     WRIT PETITION NO. 9587 OF 2016




 01.      Rabiya Mohammad Shaikh
          Mohammad Shaikh, Age 58 years,
          occup. Service, R/o near Jama Masjid,
          new Pimpawalwadi road, Shirdi,
          Taluka Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar


 02.      Ashabai Mohammad Shakh,
          Age 51 years, occup. Household,
          R/o Near Jama Masjid,
          new Pimpawalwadi road, Shirdi,
          Taluka Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar


 03.      Tamanna d/o Mohammad Shaikh,
          Age 51 years, occu. Household,
          R/o of Near Jama Msjid,
          new Pimpawalwadi road, Shirdi,
          Taluka Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar             .. Petitioners
                  versus
          Ahmed Fatarubhai Shaik,
          Age 60 years, occup. Retired,
          R/o Islamnagar, Kankuri road,
          Shirdi, Tal - Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagr       .. Respondent
              ----
 Shri Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar, Advocte for petitioners
 Mr. Milind Patil, Advocate for respondent




::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2017                 ::: Downloaded on - 23/08/2017 01:33:48 :::
                                          2                   WP-9587.16.doc



                               CORAM :       SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
                               DATE :        14th August, 2017


 JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel

for the petitioners Mr. Jahagirdar and the learned counsel for

respondent Mr. Patil finally by consent.

2. After hearing learned counsel and perusal of the order by trial

court and that by the appellate court, it emerges that the courts

have taken overall a balanced view finding that the present

petitioners are occupying the premises and they are about to carry

out construction against which injunction has been issued. Both

the courts have referred to various circumstances and documents

on record and particularly the appellate court has found it

expedient, in the circumstances, no change/alteration be allowed

in the suit property till disposal of the suit. The trial court's order

by elaborate discussion has been confirmed by the appellate court.

This is not the case wherein it can be said that the two courts have

committed such an error requiring exercise of powers of this court.

It is difficult to overturn the two decisions which appear to be

reasoned ones.

3. In the circumstances, writ petition is not being entertained

and is dismissed. However, looking at the nature of the dispute, it

3 WP-9587.16.doc

would be expedient that suit along with counterclaim is proceeded

with and is disposed of as expeditiously as possible by trial court

and is disposed of by 31-12-2017. Parties to co-operate the court

in expeditious disposal of the suit.

4. It is made clear that observations hereinabove are prima

facie in nature and are confined to this order and would have no

further efficacy or bearing on merits of the matter.

5. Writ petition stands disposed of. Rule stands discharged.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE

pnd