Shri.Jinvandhar Padamanna ... vs Jaysing Hirasing Rajaput
2021 Latest Caselaw 2624 Bom

                                                                             2 sa 221-17=



                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Sneha N.
Chavan                                        SECOND APPEAL NO. 221 OF 2017
Digitally signed by
                                                            WITH
Sneha N. Chavan                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 517 OF 2017
Date: 2021.02.09
16:03:21 +0530

                      Shri. Jinvandhar Padamanna Savale & ors             .. Appellants
                            V/s.

                      Jaysing Hirasing Rajput                             ..Respondent
                                                        ----
                      Mr. Vijay Killedar for the Appellants.

                      Mr. Prashant Suryawanshi i/b G.M. Savagave for the Respondent.
                                                     ----
                                                    CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.

                                                    DATE    : 09th FEBRUARY, 2021

                      P.C.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned

counsel for the respondent seeks time.

2. The respondent had filed a suit for prohibitory and mandatory

injunction in respect of a road, which is claimed as an easement of

necessity. The learned Trial Court partly decreed the suit, granting

prohibitory injunction. However, relief of mandatory injunction was

refused. Feeling aggrieved by grant of prohibitory injunction, the

present appellants (original defendants) approached the learned

Sneha Chavan page 1 of 3 2 sa 221-17=

District Judge at Jaysingpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 20 of 2014,

which came to be dismissed on 30.07.2016. Hence, this appeal.

3. On hearing the learned counsel for the appellants, it appears

that the original plaintiff has not challenged the refusal of the

mandatory injunction by the Trial Court. Insofar as the prohibitory

injunction is concerned, both the courts have concurrently held that

the respondent has an access/road by way of an easement of

necessity and therefore, have granted prohibitory injunction.

4. The learned counsel for the appellants in all fairness

submitted that there was no stay operating to the said part of the

judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. The learned counsel

for the appellants submitted that the only apprehension of the

appellants, is that a certain construction and the coconut trees,

which according to the appellants are standing on the portion,

which is claimed as a road would be demolished/cut. For this

purpose the learned Counsel has pointed out the communication

between the Executive Magistrate, Shirol and Police Station

Kurundwad, wherein the respondent has sought police protection.

The letters appear to be of September and November 2020. It is not

known whether such laying of metal on the road is completed or

Sneha Chavan page 2 of 3 2 sa 221-17=

not. The learned counsel for the respondent, therefore, sought time

to take instructions and to make appropriate statement.

5. In that view of the matter, stand over to 23.02.2021.

C.V. BHADANG, J.

     Sneha Chavan                                               page 3 of 3