Bombay High Court
Gulabrao Balupant Rathod vs Anand Parmanand Vyas And 2 Others on 25 January, 2021
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
Judgment
wp3918.17 18
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.3918 OF 2017
Gulabrao Balupant Rathod,
Aged 59 years, occupation agriculturist,
R/o Narayan Nagar, Morshi Road,
Amravati, tahsil and district Amravati. ..... Petitioner.
:: V E R S U S ::
1. Anand Parmanand Vyas,
Age 46 years, occupation business,
R/o Bhaddhoka Chowk, near house of
Sevakram Bikaner,
District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Subhash Babarao Chauhan,
Age 42 year, occupation agriculturist,
R/o Chirodi, tahsil Chandur Rly., district
Amravati.
3. Marotrao Govindrao Girhase,
Age 52 years, occupation
R/o Thugaon, tahsil Chandur Rly.,
district Amravati. ..... Respondents.
===================================
Shri N.B.Bargat, Counsel for the petitioner.
None for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Shri J.J.Chandurkar, Counsel for respondent No.3.
===================================
CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JANUARY 25, 2021
.....2/-
::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 20:01:41 :::
Judgment
wp3918.17 18
2
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel Shri N.B.Bargat for the
petitioner and learned counsel Shri J.J.Chandurkar for respondent
No.3. For disposal of this writ petition, presence of respondent
No.1 is not required. Though respondent No.2 is duly served,
nobody is appearing on his behalf. Rule. Rule is made returnable
forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel of parties.
2. The petitioner is original plaintiff. He filed a civil suit
bearing Special Civil Suit No.172/2014 against respondent Nos.1
and 2 for specific performance of contract. During the pendency of
the suit, it is reported that, respondent No.3 is made as defendant.
3. Be that as it may, the plaintiff filed an application for
temporary injunction under order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 in Special
Civil Suit No.172/2014. Learned 4th Joint Civil Judge Junior
Division, Amravati partly allowed the application inasmuch as
injunction claimed by the plaintiff restraining defendants from
disturbing his possession was rejected but defendants were
directed not to create any third party interest.
.....3/-
::: Uploaded on - 27/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 20:01:41 :::
Judgment
wp3918.17 18
3
4. The plaintiff, thereafter, preferred a Misc. Civil Appeal
No.32/2015. The said appeal was heard on its own merits and
vide judgment dated 20.2.2017 learned Judge of the Lower
Appellate Court dismissed the appeal observing that the plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate that he is in possession of the disputed
land.
5. Today, it was informed to this Court that Special Civil
Suit No.172/2014 has ripe up for its final hearing inasmuch as
evidence has already commenced and it is going on.
6. In this view of the matter and looking to concurrent
finding of facts recorded by both Courts below in respect of
possession of the plaintiff, this writ petition is disposed of by
following order:
ORDER
(1) The writ petition is dismissed confirming order dated
13.7.2015 passed by learned 4th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division,
Amravati below Exhibit 5 in Special Civil Suit No.172/2014
.....4/-
Judgment
wp3918.17 18
together with judgment and decree dated 20.2.2017 passed by
learned 4th District Judge, Amravati in Misc. Civil Appeal
No.32/2015.
(2) Learned Judge on whose file Special Civil Suit No.172/2014 is
pending shall decide the said as expeditiously as possible and
preferably within a period of one year from the date of this order.
The writ petition is disposed of. Rule is discharged
accordingly.
JUDGE
!! BRW !!
...../-
