Bombay High Court
Shankar Mandir Sansthan Through ... vs Sau. Vijaya W/O Nitin Hiwase on 31 October, 2017
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 wp712.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2017
1. Shankar Mandir Sansthan,
A registered Public Trust Through its
President Shri Anant Gudhe, Aged
about 62 years, Occupation : Business,
R/o. Rahatgaon Road, Amravati,
District : Amravati.
2. Anant Gudhe, President of Shankar
Mandir Sansthan, Aged about 62 years,
Occ. Business, R/o. Rahatgaon Road,
Amravati, District : Amravati.
3. Rameshappa V. Mendase,
Secretary, Shankar Mandir Sansthan,
Aged about 74 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Mendase Sadan, Sabanpura,
Amravati, District : Amravati.
4. Manohar V. Kapase,
Aged about 72 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Friends Colony, R/o. Amravati
District : Amravati.
5. Bharatappa V. Mendase,
Aged about 64 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Tope Nagar, R/o. Amravati,
District : Amravati.
6. Prakashappa Sangekar,
Aged about 72 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Sonarwada, Budhwara.
Amravati, District : Amravati.
7. Ravindrappa T. Viadhya,
aged about 58 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Dahisath Road, Budhwara,
Amravati, District : Amravati.
::: Uploaded on - 07/11/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 08/11/2017 00:59:53 :::
Judgment 2 wp712.17.odt
8. Sudhirappa S. Modhe,
aged about 64 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Shivarpan Colony, Amravati,
District : Amravati.
9. Ashokappa R. Jiwarkar,
aged about 61 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Kantanagar, Amravati,
District : Amravati.
10. Abhimanappa D. Doijad,
aged about 46 years, Occu.: Business,
R/o. Suyog Colony, District Court,
Amravati, District : Amravati.
.... PETITIONERS.
// VERSUS //
Sau. Vijaya W/o. Nitin Hiwase,
Aged about 46 years, Occu.: Business,
Prop. New Chanakya Garden Restaurant,
R/o. Namdeo Maharaj Mandir Road,
Gadge Nagar, Amravati.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri A.M.Sudame, Advocate for Petitioner.
Shri Sawan Alaspurkar, Advocate for Respondent.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 31, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
Judgment 3 wp712.17.odt
3. The original defendants (Public Trust and its trustees) have
challenged the judgment and order passed by the subordinate Courts
concurrently upholding the claim of the respondent/ plaintiff for grant of
temporary injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with her
possession over the suit land / property.
4. The plaintiff filed civil suit praying for decree for declaration that
she is tenant of defendants and has right to use the suit property until
dispossessed by due process of law. The plaintiff prayed for decree for
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession
over the suit property. The plaintiff also prayed for other ancillary reliefs. In
this civil suit the plaintiff filed an application praying for temporary
injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession
over the suit property and further restraining the defendants from
demolishing the structure standing over the suit property. The defendants
opposed the claim of the plaintiff. After considering the rival submissions,
the learned trial Judge recorded that the plaintiff has prima-facie proved that
she is in possession of the suit property since 2009 and granted temporary
injunction as sought by the plaintiff. The appeal filed by the defendants
challenging the above order is dismissed.
Judgment 4 wp712.17.odt
5. The learned advocate for the petitioners/ defendants have
submitted that the plaintiff has not been able to show that she is in legal and
settled possession and therefore, she is not entitled for temporary injunction.
6. The facts on record show that there is establishment of the plaintiff
where she is running a restaurant/ hotel. The plaintiff claims that the land
admeasuring 20000 square feet, as described in paragraph 1 of the plaint,
was leased out to her on monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-. The advocate for the
plaintiff has submitted that the plaintiff has paid the rent as per agreement
till March, 2015 i.e. filing of the civil suit.
7. Considering the facts of the case, in my view, the interests of
justice would be sub-served by passing the following order:
i. The plaintiff shall deposit Rs.3,20,000/- before the trial
Court till 15th November, 2017.
ii. The plaintiff shall deposit further amount of
Rs.3,20,000/- before the trial Court till 16th January, 2018.
iii. The plaintiff shall continue to deposit Rs.20,000/- per
month before the trial Court towards occupation charges, from
December, 2017 till disposal of the civil suit. This amount of
Rs.20,000/- shall be deposited till 5 th day of every month
starting from December, 2017.
Judgment 5 wp712.17.odt
iv. If any default in complying with the above directions is
committed by the plaintiff, the plaintiff will not be entitled for
any protection in the form of temporary injunction as sought by
her and the application (Exh.5) filed by her before the trial
Court shall stand dismissed.
v. If the amount is deposited as per the above directions,
the defendant-trust be given 50% of the amount and the
balance amount be kept in a nationalized bank in fixed deposit.
The writ petition is disposed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
