Kalyan Ganpat Pisal And Other v. Sunil Appasaheb Wagh And Others

{1} drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5893 OF 2015 1.

Kalyan s/o Ganpat Pisal PETITIONERS Age-48 years, Occ - Agri and Lawyer 2.

Sampat s/o Jagannath Pisal, Age-49 years, Occ - Agril 3.

Ashok s/o Trimbak Pisal Age-46 years, Occ - Agril All R/o Handi - Nimgaon, Taluka - Newasa, District - Ahmednagar

VERSUS

1.

Sunil s/o Appasaheb Wagh RESPONDENTS Age-31 years, Occ - Agril 2.

Nitin Laxman Badhe, Age-31 years, Occ - Agril.

Both R/o Sonai, Taluka-Newasa, District - Ahmednagar 3.

Sham s/o Appasaheb Yelwande, Age-33 years, Occ - Agril R/o Hanumanwadi, Sonai, Taluka - Newasa, District - Ahmednagar 4.

Sadashiv Janardhan Bhange Age-38 years, Occ - Agril R/o Bhanashiwara, Taluka-Newasa District - Ahmednagar 5.

Shri. Sant Nagebaba Urban Credit Society Ltd., Through its Secretary, Shri. Balasaheb Revannath Tikkal, Age-32 years, Occ-Service R/o Pachegaon, Taluka-Newasa District - Ahmednagar

{2} 6.

The District Collector, Ahmednagar DELETED 7.

The Tahsildar Newasa DELETED 8.

The Circle Officer, Newasa DELETED 9.

The Talathi Handinimgaon, Tq-Newasa DELETED 10.

Madhukar Madhav Gosavi DELETED 11.

Suresh Madhav Gosavi DELETED 12.

Lilawati Devidas Puranik DELETED 13.

Ashok Vitthal Kulkarni DELETED 14.

Sunil Vitthal Kulkarni DELETED 15.

Jayshree Vijaykumar Joshi DELETED 16.

Mohini Sanjay Lavar DELETED 17.

Prabhavati Shashikant Garbhe DELETED 18.

Balasaheb Maruti Wable DELETED 19.

Suryakant Uddhav Mokashi DELETED 20.

Santosh Kachardas Chordiya DELETED .......

Mr. Rahul R. Karpe, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. V. D. Sapkal, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5 .......

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] DATE : 17 th JUNE, 2015 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Learned advocate for the petitioners submits on instructions that respondents No. 6 to 20 are not contesting

{3} parties and as such, seeks leave to delete their names from the array of respondents. Leave granted. Names of respondents No. 6 to 20 stand deleted from the array of respondents, at the risk and peril of the petitioners.

2.

Rule. Rule made returnable and heard learned advocates for the contesting parties finally at the stage of admission. 3.

The petitioners have moved civil court seeking injunction and declaration in respect of sale deeds to be void and not binding on them. Along with said suit, an application for temporary injunction had been moved. The court had issued show cause notice in the application for temporary injunction, returnable on 13th March, 2015. Pursuant to the notice, defendants No. 6 to 20, though served, did not put in appearance on their behalf in the matter. As such, the matter was ordered to proceed ex parte against them on 13th March, 2015. Subsequently, the petitioners filed an application at Exhibit-42 moving the court for injunction against said defendants and the court granted application under order dated 17th March, 2015. Said order formed subject matter of Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.4 of 2015 at the instance of defendants. The court under its order dated 29th April, 2015 had

{4} set aside order dated 17th March, 2015 and directed the trial court to hear Exhibit-5 - application for temporary injunction expeditiously. After Miscellaneous Civil Appeal was allowed, the petitioners appear to have moved an application at Exhibit-13 in said proceedings and the court, upon said request passed an order on 30th April, 2015 and directed that operation of decision dated 29th April, 2015 shall remain stayed till 15th June, 2015, and further directed the parties to maintain status quo. 4.

I do not see any purpose in going on with the matter on merits, for, the appellate court has already directed the trial court to decide Exhibit-5 application expeditiously and since resile to that it would be expedient and in the interest of justice that application Exhibit-5 is decided expeditiously. Under the circumstances, order dated 30th April, 2015 passed by appellate court shall continue to operate till disposal of application Exhibit-5.

5.

Writ petition, as such, stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. In no event this order shall be deemed to be an order on merits on Exhibit-5. [SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] drp/wp5893-15