Bombay High Court
Anilkumar Kachrulalji Abad And ... vs Surajabai Ikachrulalji Abad And ... on 29 April, 2021
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 WP 6273.2021.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
914 WRIT PETITION NO.6273 OF 2021
ANILKUMAR KACHRULALJI ABAD AND OTHERS
VERSUS
SURAJABAI IKACHRULALJI ABAD AND OTHERS
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Kazi S.S.
Advocate for Respondent 4 : Mr. Mahesh R. Sonwane
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Dated: April 29, 2021
...
PER COURT :-
1. I have heard the learned counsel for the
petitioners/original plaintiffs for some time.
2. The petitioners have instituted the suit bearing
Special Civil Suit No.84 of 2008 challenging thereby the
compromise decree Exhibit 14 in Special Civil Suit No.27
of 2007 and also for declaration of ownership and for a
decree of perpetual injunction. By judgment and decree
dated 16.12.2019 the trial court has dismissed the said
suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have
preferred RCA No.11 of 2020 and pending the appeal
has fled an application exhibit 11 for issuance of the
aaa/-
2 WP 6273.2021.odt
temporary injunction against respondent nos.1 to 4
directing them not to alienate the suit property by any
mode of transfer or by document or from creating third
party interest. The learned District Judge-3 by
impugned order dated 16.3.2021 rejected the said
application.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners/original
plaintiffs submits that during the pendency of the suit,
on 7.2.2009 the Trial Court has disposed off the
application fled by the petitioners seeking issuance of
the temporary injunction with the directions to
maintain the status-quo in respect of the suit property
as on the date of the suit till the decision of the suit.
Learned counsel submits that said order remained in
force till the disposal of the suit and, even during the
pendency of the application exhibit-11 in the appeal
bearing RCA No.11 of 2020, on the basis of the
application submitted by the petitioners at Exhibit 30,
the learned District Judge-4, Jalna by order dated
12.11.2020 has directed respondent no.1 herein to
aaa/-
3 WP 6273.2021.odt
maintain the status-quo and refrained her from selling
the suit property till the hearing of Exhibit-11.
4. Learned counsel for respondent no.4 appearing on
caveat submits that the suit itself is not maintainable
since the compromise decree was challenged by
instituting a separate suit. Learned counsel submits
that after obtaining the status-quo order, the petitioners
have played all the delayed tactics and in consequence
thereof, the suit came to be disposed off in the year
2019.
5. So far as the submissions made on behalf of
respondent no.4 on merits are concerned, the
substantive appeal preferred by the petitioners bearing
RCA No.11 of 2020 is pending before the First Appellate
Court. However, the fact remained that way back in the
year 2009, by order dated 7.2.2009 the trial court has
directed the parties to maintain the status-quo in
respect of the suit property as on the date of the suit till
the decision of the suit and, said order remained in
force till the year 2019. Furthermore, respondent no.1
aaa/-
4 WP 6273.2021.odt
is further directed to maintain the status-quo by order
dated 12.11.2020 in RCA No.11 of 2020 till deciding the
application exhibit 11.
6. In view of the above, issue notice to the
Respondents, returnable on 15.6.2021.
7. Till the next date of hearing, ad-interim relief in
terms of prayer clause 'C'.
( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
...
aaa/-
