Bharat Dhondiram Shinde And ANR. v. Nagnath Dattu Shinde And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 773 OF 2026 Bharat Dhondiram Shinde And Anr.

....Petitioners

VERSUS

Nagnath Dattu Shinde And Ors. ....Respondents ...

Mr. Rupesh K. Bobade a/w Mr. Niranjan V. Dhainje, for Petitioners. Mr. Abhijit Adagule, for Respondents.

...

CORAM

:

SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE :

7th MARCH 2026.

P.C.

1.

The petitioners have raised a challenge to the judgment and order dated 25.04.2023 passed below Exhibit - 5 in Regular Civil Suit No.777 of 2022 by the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Barshi as well as the Judgment and order dated 01.01.2026 passed by the learned District Judge - 2, Barshi in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.45 of 2023.

2.

Petitioners and Respondent Nos.2 to 6 are original plaintiff in R.C.S. No.777 of 2022 filed before the trial Court seeking declaration and injunction, whereas Respondent No.1 is one of the original defendants.

3.

The Plaintiffs contend that the suit properties are situated at Shindewadi and within the jurisdiction of Sapatane. It is alleged that despite the existence of an access road from another side, Defendant

No. 1, for his convenience and by illegal means, prepared a false and forged map indicating a non-existent road and filed an application under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act before the Tahsildar claiming a right of way. The Plaintiffs contend that no such road exists on the boundary of their lands, as the area is covered with old trees and thick vegetation.

4.

It is further alleged that Defendant No. 1, in connivance with other defendants, initiated the said proceedings. When the Tahsildar conducted a spot inspection, a panchnama was prepared; however, the panchnama does not record the existence of any old pathway. The Plaintiffs further contend that Defendant No. 1 selectively indicated incorrect boundaries and prepared a false map to claim a right of way through the land of Plaintiff No. 5. In these circumstances, the Plaintiffs have filed the suit seeking to restrain the Defendants from laying a new road through the suit property under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5.

The learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Barshi after hearing the parties rejected the application seeking interim injunction vide order dated 25.04.2023 below Exhibit-5. Aggrieved thereof, the Petitioners approached the District Judge, Barshi by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No.45 of 2023, which came to be dismissed vide Judgment under challenge. Hence, the Petitioners are before this Court.

6.

Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that impugned judgment is unsustainable and is rendered against the settled principles. It is further submitted that the proceedings under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, rests upon the existence of a preexisting pathway, whereas petitioners/plaintiff had established a case that the land in question was occupied by trees and agricultural installations. The Courts below have rendered a mechanical finding without duly appreciating the evidence. Hence, prayed to allow the Petition.

7.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents has supported the order under challenge. It is submitted that they have been duly granted a right of way by the Tahsildar. Hence, the suit was filed with malicious intent and there is no error in the orders and judgment rendered by the Courts below.

8.

Having heard the submission from the respective sides and upon perusal of the record made available, it is evident that the order rendered under Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, is in favour of the defendant.

9.

At the time of deciding the application for interim injunction, the trial Court ought to examine only the prima facie case, balance of convenience and the aspect of irreparable loss. On

satisfaction of this triple test, the order of interim injunction may be passed by the trial Court without undertaking into a mini trial. 10.

In the instant case, the Defendants by virtue of Section 5 of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act, are granted a right of way. The said order is rendered on the basis of a duly prepared Panchanama. Therefore, prima facie, at this stage, all these aspects are duly appreciated by the trial Court and rightly endorsed by the appellate Court, does not warrant interference by this Court. 11.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petition is rejected. No order as to costs.

(SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) IRESH MASHAL IRESH MASHAL Date: 2026.03.16 10:51:39 +0530