Pramod S/O. Kedarnath Gandhi And ... vs Manish S/O. Ananandwardhan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 11170 Bom

2023:BHC-NAG:15889


                                                            1                            85.WP.6036-2023.odt




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 6036 OF 2023
                               ( Shri Pramod S/o Kedarnath Gandhi & Anr.
                                                  Vs.
                                 Shri Manish S/o Anandwardhan Trivedi )

         Office Notes, Office Memoranda                      Court's or Judge's orders
         of Coram, Appearances, Court's
         orders     or    directions and
         Registrar's orders


                                 Mr. H.I. Kothari, Advocate for the Petitioners.
                                 Mr. C.G. Barapatre, Advocate for the Respondent.




                                 CORAM:        AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.

DATED : 31st OCTOBER, 2023

Heard Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Barapatre, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The petition questions the judgment passed by the learned Appellate Court in M.C.A. No. 287/2022 dated 18.07.2023, by which Exh. 5, which was initially rejected by the learned Trial Court, & by the order dated 04.11.2022, has been allowed by directing that the petitioners/defendants or their agents, servants shall not disturb the possession of the plaintiff and his friends named therein without following due process of law.

3. Mr. Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondent was put in possession as a lessee of open land and two rooms under deed of lease dated 2 85.WP.6036-2023.odt

21.10.2021, on the other hand the respondent claims to be in possession in pursuance to the possession document dated 16.12.2005.

4. Whatever be the case, it is an admitted position, that the respondent is in possession of the suit property. That being the position, since an injunction has been granted based upon the apprehension of the respondent of the petitioners taking forcible possession without following due process of law, the same cannot be said to be without any reason whatsoever. I, therefore, do not see any reason to differ with the view taken by the learned Appellate Court in the impugned judgment, except to the extent it holds that the friends of the respondent namely Pratik Lohkare and Prakash Athhawale are also in possession and are entitled to protection.

5. The judgment of the learned Appellate Court, is therefore modified by holding that it is only the respondent/plaintiff, who is in possession of the suit property, whose possession cannot be interfered without following due process of law.

6. The Petition is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

SD. Bhimte Signed by: Mr.S.D.Bhimte Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/11/2023 10:49:52