Bombay High Court
SURESH RAMA PAWARversusDIGAMBAR VITHAL BHOSALE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- MEHROZ K PATHAN
Holding
The court ordered that the parties maintain the status quo with respect to possession of the suit property until the next hearing.
Summary
The trial court had decreed a suit in favour of the plaintiff, Suresh Rama Pawar, granting an injunction that restrained the defendants from obstructing his possession of land (Gat/Survey No. 40/A) and from interfering with his half‑share in a well. The first appellate court reversed the trial court's findings, prompting the applicant to seek interim protection. The applicant contended that the defendants were perpetually restrained from obstructing possession and that a deed dated 19‑12‑1986 showed the deceased Maroti had sold the property and handed possession to the plaintiff. The appellate court framed the issue of whether that agreement to sell existed and was acted upon, answering it affirmatively. In view of the pending appeal and to preserve the status quo, the court ordered that the parties maintain the existing possession of the suit property until the next hearing on 18‑06‑2026.
Issues considered
- Whether the deceased Maroti executed an agreement to sell dated 19‑12‑1986 concerning the suit property and the half‑share in the well and handed possession to the plaintiff
- Whether interim relief in the form of a status‑quo order should be granted pending the appeal
Subjects
- injunction
- interim relief
- status quo
- property possession
- agreement to sell
- civil appeal
Judgment
918 CA NO. 5186 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5186 OF 2026
IN SAST/802/2026
Suresh Rama Pawar
VERSUS
Digambar Vithal Bhosale And Others
…
• Mr. Kuldeep Subhashrao Patil, Advocate for Applicant
• Mr. Mr. I. K. Wagh a/w Mr. G. L. Tade, Advocate for
Respondent Nos. 1 to 4
…
CORAM : MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J.
DATED : 08.05.2026
PER COURT :
1. Due to paucity of time, today the Second Appeal could not be
taken up for hearing on admission. However, learned counsel for the
applicant prays for grant of interim protection, as the Trial Court had
decreed the suit, whereas the First Appellate Court has reversed the
findings recorded by the Trial Court.
2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the Trial Court
had granted injunction in favour of the plaintiff by decreeing the suit
and thereby restraining the defendants from causing obstruction to
the possession of the plaintiff over the land bearing Gat/Survey No.
40/A situated at Village Bendga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur. The
boundaries of the suit property are stated as follows :-
Jhs/ 1/2
918 CA NO. 5186 OF 2026
East and North : Remaining land of Maruti Dhuman
West : Land of Namdev Tukaram Bhingole
South : Land of Narayan Sambhaji Sarate
3. It is further submitted that the defendants were also
perpetually restrained from causing obstruction in utilization of half
share in the well situated at the eastern common bandh of the suit
property and the land of defendant No. 5.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the First
Appellate Court had framed an issue as to whether deceased Maroti
had executed an agreement to sell dated 19.12.1986 in respect of the
suit property and half share in the well and had handed over
possession thereof to the plaintiff, and the said issue was answered in
the affirmative.
5. Taking into consideration the aforesaid submissions, parties are
directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession and nature
of the suit property as on today till the next date of hearing.
6. Stand over to 18.06.2026.
( MEHROZ K. PATHAN, J. )
Jhs/ 2/2
Checking your session…