Mr. Lahanuji S/O Sakharam Bawane And Others v. State Of Maha. Thr Collector Office, Chandrapur And Others

0403wp1021.16.odt 1/1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1021 OF 2016 (Lahanuji Sakharam Bawane &18 others Vs. State of Maharashtra through Collector, Chandrapur & others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Ananta Ramteke, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Pradeep Wathore, Advocate for the intervenor. Shri Amit Balpande, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI AND P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATED : 04 MARCH, 2016 The petitioners while approaching this Court had also approached the learned District Judge being aggrieved by the order passed by the Civil Judge thereby rejecting their application for injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.

The said fact is not disclosed in the present petition. A party cannot be permitted to prosecute two remedies simultaneously. At least, it was expected of the petitioners to disclose the said fact in the petition. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. Writ petition is, therefore, rejected for suppression of material facts.

Applications for intervention are disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE wwl