Bombay High CourtWP/6195/2019dismissedrule discharged

Divesh S/O Pravin Nathwani v. Jayprakash Devdutta Mishra Dead, Through Lrs. Ashish Jayprakash Mishra And Another

2019-09-09Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 7.wp6195.2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.6195/2019 Divesh S/o. Pravin Nathwani ..VS..

Jayprakash Devdutta Mishra (dead) & Oth.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court'

s or Judge'

s orders appearances, Court'

s orders of directions and Registrar'

s orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri M. A. Deo, Advocate for the petitioner CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 9 th September 2019 Heard.

2] By the impugned order, learned trial Judge has rejected the application (Exh.95) filed by the petitioners (Plaintiffs) praying that police aid be granted to enforce the order of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court against the respondents/defendants. By the order of temporary injunction, the defendants are restrained from undertaking any construction over the suit property/public road. The learned trial Judge has rejected the application (Exh.95) observing that the defendants have denied the allegations made by the plaintiffs. The learned trial Judge has observed that the plaintiffs may take recourse to Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, if aggrieved, in the matter. 3] After going through the facts of the case and impugned order, I find that the learned trial judge has

2 7.wp6195.2019 not committed any error by rejecting the application (Exh. 95). The learned trial Judge has judiciously passed the impugned order reserving the right of the petitioners/ plaintiffs to take recourse to Order 39 Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order in the extraordinary jurisdiction.

The petition is dismissed. No costs.

It is clarified that the petitioner will be at liberty to take recourse to appropriate proceedings as per law.

JUDGE Namrata