Mr. Ajay Kamalakar Patil And ORS v. Mrs. Pushpa Manohar Dawne And ORS

Diksha Rane

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Digitally signed by DIKSHA DINESH RANE Date:

2022.09.30 19:48:11 +0530 DIKSHA DINESH RANE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 478 OF 2021 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2021 Ajay Kamalakar Patil & ors.

..Appellants vs.

Pushpa Manohar Dawne & ors.

..Respondents ------------ Mr. Pritesh K. Bohade for appellants.

None for the respondents.

------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 28, 2022.

P.C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2.

The appeal though numbered as A.O. No. 478 of 2021 was in fact filed in the year 2015. The appellants are the original defendant nos. 1 to 4. The order impugned is dated 25/2/2015 passed by the City Civil Court granting injunction not to disturb the possession of the respondents-plaintiffs in the suit property for the reasons stated therein. The suit is of the year 2013.

3.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in granting injunction in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel further contended that the order impugned deserves to be set aside. Furthermore, it is his submission that in the event

this Court has not inclined to interfere with the order at this stage since the injunction is operative from 25/2/2015, he prayed that the trial Court be requested to dispose of the suit expeditiously. It is also pointed out that the land in question is an open piece of land, there being no development activities. Learned counsel submits that since the suit is pending, with a view not to precipitate the matter any further, in the interest of justice, it would be necessary to restrain the defendants from changing the nature of the suit property.

4.

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondents have duly been served. I find that there is no appearance on behalf of the respondents. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, at this distance of time, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the trial Court which is operative from 25/2/2015. Even learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he would be satisfied if the suit which is of the year 2013 can be expedited. Accordingly, the trial Court is requested to hear the S. C. Suit No. 502 of 2013 expeditiously and preferably within 18 months from the date when this order is placed on record.

5.

As is submission of learned counsel for the appellants that there is no development on the suit property, since the hearing of the suit is expedited, the apprehension that the nature of the suit property would undergo a change is unfounded. However, should the appellants notice any

material alterations in the nature of the suit property, liberty to apply to the trial Court. The same be considered independently on its own merits.

6.

The appeal is disposed of.

7.

The civil application is also disposed of.

(M.S.KARNIK, J.)