Vitthal S/O Pundalik Telang v. Smt. Vimal Shankarrao Kawale And Others

2025:BHC-NAG:4564

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 6412/2024 WRIT PETITION NO. 6412/2024 Vitthal S/o Pundalik Telang Vitthal S/o Pundalik Telang, , Aged about 60 years, Occ. Retired, Aged about 60 years, Occ. Retired, R/o. Pimpalgaon, Samudrapur, R/o. Pimpalgaon, Samudrapur, Tahsil Samudrapur, District Wardha Tahsil Samudrapur, District Wardha ....

.... PETITIONER(S) PETITIONER(S) // // VERSUS // VERSUS // (1) (1) Smt. Vimal Shankarrao Kawale Smt. Vimal Shankarrao Kawale, Aged about 75 years, Occ. Agriculturist, Aged about 75 years, Occ. Agriculturist, (2) (2) Raju Shankarrao Kawale Raju Shankarrao Kawale, , (Dead) Through Legal Representative (Dead) Through Legal Representative (2a) (2a) Shri Vishal Raju Kawale Shri Vishal Raju Kawale, , Aged about 25 years, Occ. Service, Aged about 25 years, Occ. Service, R/o. Ram Cooler Chowk, Shukrawari, R/o. Ram Cooler Chowk, Shukrawari, Nagpur, Tah & District Nagpur Nagpur, Tah & District Nagpur (3) (3) Dilip Shankarrao Kawale Dilip Shankarrao Kawale, , (Dead) Through Legal Representative (Dead) Through Legal Representative (3a) (3a) Sonam Dilip Kawale Sonam Dilip Kawale, , Aged about 31 years, Occ. Household Aged about 31 years, Occ. Household (3b) (3b) Akshay Dilip Kawale Akshay Dilip Kawale, , Aged about 23 years, Occ. Labour Aged about 23 years, Occ. Labour (4) (4) Shri Umesh Shankarrao Kawale Shri Umesh Shankarrao Kawale, Aged Adult, Occ. Service, Aged Adult, Occ. Service,

(5) (5) Shri Prashant Shankarrao Kawale Shri Prashant Shankarrao Kawale, Aged Adult, Occ. Labour, Aged Adult, Occ. Labour, (6) (6) Ku. Mirawati Shankarrao Kawale Ku. Mirawati Shankarrao Kawale, Aged Adult, Occ. Household, Aged Adult, Occ. Household, (7) (7) Shri Pintu Shankarrao Kawale Shri Pintu Shankarrao Kawale, Aged Adult, Occ. Not known, Aged Adult, Occ. Not known, (8) (8) Shri Ravi Shankarrao Kawale Shri Ravi Shankarrao Kawale, Aged Adult, Occ. Labour, Aged Adult, Occ. Labour, Nos. 1, 3a, 3b, 4 to 8 all residents of Nos. 1, 3a, 3b, 4 to 8 all residents of Netaji Ward Nishan Pura, Near Statue Netaji Ward Nishan Pura, Near Statue of Sant Tukdoji Maharaj, Hinganghat, of Sant Tukdoji Maharaj, Hinganghat, Tah. Hinganghat, District Wardha Tah. Hinganghat, District Wardha ....

.... RESPONDENT(S) RESPONDENT(S) ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ Shri A. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner(s) Shri A. Deshpande, Advocate for the Petitioner(s) Shri N.M. Kamble, Adv h/f Shri D.R. Bhoyar, Adv for the Shri N.M. Kamble, Adv h/f Shri D.R. Bhoyar, Adv for the Respondents Respondents ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ ∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞∞ CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

CORAM : M.S. JAWALKAR, J.

APRIL 25 APRIL 25 , 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT ORAL JUDGMENT :- :- .

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the respective parties.

(2) The present Petition is filed by the Petitioner challenging the order dated 14/10/2024 passed on the Application below Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 57/2023 by the learned District Judge-1, Hinganghat whereby the Application filed by the Petitioner - Plaintiff for grant of temporary injunction came to be rejected.

(3) The Suit was instituted for the relief of specific performance of contract and perpetual injunction. The learned Trial Court granted temporary injunction in favour of the Petitioner - Plaintiff which was continued during the pendency of the Suit. The learned Trial Court dismissed the Suit, after hearing both the parties, however, held that the Plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, but the possession was not lawful.

(4) The learned District Judge rejected the Application below Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 57/2023 on the ground that possession was illegal. Though it is observed in the impugned order that the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, the said possession is held as illegal.

(5) In view of the order passed by the learned Trial Court and as admittedly, the Petitioner - Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, the learned District Judge ought to have allowed the Application below Exhibit 5. Moreover, during the pendency of the Suit, the possession was protected.

(6) The learned Counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposed the Petition, however, in my considered opinion, considering the fact that the Petitioner is in possession of the suit property, it ought to have been continued. In view thereof, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. (7) Hence, I proceed to pass following order:-

O R D E R

(a) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(b) The impugned order dated 14/10/2024 passed on the Application below Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Appeal

No. 57/2023 by the learned District Judge-1, Hinganghat is hereby quashed and set aside.

(c) The Application below Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 57/2023 is allowed in terms of prayer clause (i).

(d) The District Judge-1, Hinganghat is hereby directed to decide the Regular Civil Appeal No. 57/2023 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from today.

The Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. Pending Application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) (M.S. JAWALKAR, J.) Signed by: A.P. ANSARI Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 02/05/2025 16:51:47