Bombay High Court

TULSIRAM MANIK WAGHMAREversusSAYYED CHANDSAAB SAYYED MEHBOOB DIED THROUGH LRS AND ANOTHER

Disposal: APPLICATION ALLOWED

Holding

The court allowed the amendment to add the subsequent purchaser, granted condonation of delay, dismissed the unmaintainable application, held the injunction application infructuous due to transfer of the property, and ordered appropriate notices for the appeal.

Summary

The plaintiff filed multiple civil applications in a second appeal concerning a suit over agricultural land. Application No. 9392 sought to add a subsequent purchaser as a party, which the court permitted and directed amendment within two weeks. Application No. 2845 requested condonation of a 100‑day delay in filing the second appeal, and the court allowed the condonation and disposed of the application. Application No. 2846 was dismissed as unmaintainable because no decree had been passed against the applicant. Application No. 12422 sought a temporary injunction to restrain alienation of the suit property, but the court found the relief infructuous after the property was transferred to the proposed respondent No.3 and disposed of it. The court also ordered notices to be issued to the respondents for the second appeal, with certain notices waived.

Issues considered

Whether a subsequent purchaser can be added as a party to the second appeal by amendment.
Whether a delay of 100 days in filing the second appeal can be condoned.
Whether an application is maintainable when no decree has been passed against the applicant.
Whether a temporary injunction to restrain alienation of agricultural land is warranted.
Effect of transfer of the suit property on the necessity of the injunction application.

Subjects

amendment of appeal
condonation of delay
maintainability
temporary injunction
alienation of agricultural land
notice issuance
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39748


                                                                               ca9392.26
                                                  -1-


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             51 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9392 OF 2026
                                        IN SAST/6649/2025
                                              WITH
                              CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2845 OF 2025
                                              WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12422 OF 2025
                                              WITH
                              CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2846 OF 2025

                                     Tulsiram Manik Waghmare
                                               VERSUS
                 Sayyed Chandsaab Sayyed Mehboob Died Through Lrs And Another
                                                   ...
                 Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Sachin G. Joshi
                 Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Ms. Priyanka Sarnaik h/f Mr.
                 Uddhav L. Momale
                                                  …..

                                     CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.
                                     DATED : 31st AUGUST, 2026

                 PER COURT :-


                 1.       The civil application No. 9392 of 2026 is filed for adding the

                 subsequent purchaser of the suit property in the second appeal.

                 Perused the application. Heard learned advocates of both sides. For

                 the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed.

                 Amendment be carried out within two weeks from today. After the

                 amendment is carried, issue notice to the proposed respondent No.3,

                 returnable on 12.10.2026.



                 2.       The civil application No. 2845 of 2025 is filed for
                                                                 ca9392.26
                                   -2-

condonation of delay of 100 days caused in filing the second appeal.

Perused the application. Heard learned advocates for both sides. For

the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and

disposed of.



3.        In so far as civil application No. 2846 of 2025 is concerned,

no any decree is passed against the applicant.           The application

therefore, is not maintainable and is disposed of accordingly.



4.        The civil application No. 12422 of 2025 is filed for grant of

temporary injunction by way of prayer clause “B” which reads as

under:-



          “B.       That, the respondent No.2 or his agent/
          servant/representative or any GPA holder may kindly
          be injuncted by way of appropriate order from
          alienation of the suit property i.e. agriculture land of
          Sy. No.14/2 admeasuring 6 Acre 25 Gunthas situated
          at village Haibatpur, Tq. Udgir, District Latur.”



5.        Now the suit property, involved in the matter, is transferred

to the proposed respondent No.3.             The application therefore,

becomes infructuous and it is disposed of.



6.        In second appeal, issue notice to the respondents,
                                                         ca9392.26
                                  -3-

returnable on 12.10.2026.



7.        Ms. Sarnaik, learned advocate h/f Mr. Momale, learned

advocate, waives notice for respondent No. 2. Respondent Nos. 1-A

and 1-B are already served by way of paper publication. Therefore,

it is not necessary to issue notices to them.



                                   (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.)

rlj/

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…