Bombay High Court
Pradeep Devidasrao Sawant vs The Block Development Officer, ... on 29 November, 2017
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP-2382-14.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2381 OF 2014
Bappaji s/o Kashinath Kapre,
Age 45 years, occup.Agril.,
R/. Kaij,Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed .. Petitioner
versus
1. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samittee Kaij,
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed .. Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2382 OF 2014
Pradeep s/o Devidasrao Sawant
Age 33 years, occup. Business,
R/. Sawantwadi, at present Kaij,
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed. .. Petitioner
versus
1. The Block Development Officer,
Panchayat Samittee Kaij,
Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed
2. The Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Beed .. Respondents
----
Mr. Nitin T. Tribhuwan, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. P. D. Suryawanshi, Advocate for respondents
::: Uploaded on - 06/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/12/2017 00:58:45 :::
2 WP-2382-14.doc
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 29-11-2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned
counsel for appearing parties finally, by consent.
2. Petitioners in the two petitions are plaintiffs in regular
civil suit no. 9 of 2005 and 13 of 2005 respectively filed
before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kaij, seeking declaration
and injunction. During pendency of suit, interim relief in the
shape of status-quo order had been prevailing. Subsequently,
suits had been dismissed and as such, plaintiffs had preferred
regular civil appeal no. 180 of 2012 and 177 of 2012
respectively. Even during pendency of appeals initially status-
quo as had been operating under interim order of the trial
court had been directed to be maintained. The same was
extended from time to time and on a day when the lawyers
were striking and petitioners' advocate could not attend to
the court, applications for interim relief during pendency of
appeals stood rejected under orders passed on 10-03-2014
on Exhibits 31 and 37 in respective appeals. It is against
these orders present writ petitions have been filed.
3 WP-2382-14.doc
3. Learned counsel for petitioners points out that interim
relief in terms of prayer clause 'D' which is identical in both
the writ petitions had been operating. Prayer clause 'D' reads
thus;
'' D. Pending hearing and final disposal of this writ petition, the
respondent may please be directed to maintain status-quo about the
suit plot of petitioner. ''
4. He submits that the appeal is ripe for hearing finally and
as such requests that relief hitherto operating be directed to
be continued till disposal of the appeals.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Suryawanshi, appearing on behalf
of respondents in both the writ petitions is reluctant to
accede to the proposition by petitioners.
6. However, in the circumstances hitherto, it would be
expedient that interim relief operating under the orders of this
court be allowed to be continued during pendency of the
appeals before the appellate court.
7. As such, interim relief as operating to continue to
operate during pendency of the appeals before the appellate
court. The appeals be decided expeditiously, preferably within
4 WP-2382-14.doc
a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this
order. Rule made absolute accordingly.
7. Both the writ petitions stand disposed of.
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,
JUDGE
pnd
