Bombay High Court
SOU. ALKA NETAJI WAGHversus1. SOU. MINA BHAGAJI AWATE AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Allowed
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
The court upheld the existing status‑quo order and declined to modify it, directing that it continue during the pendency of the second appeal.
Summary
The applicant, Alka Netaji Wagh, filed a civil application seeking a temporary injunction to restrain Respondent No.1 from interfering with her possession of the suit land. The underlying suit for specific performance was initially decreed in her favour by the trial court, but the defendant appealed, resulting in the reversal of the decree and dismissal of the suit. The applicant contended that she remained in possession and that the respondent's actions amounted to contempt of the status‑quo order. The court noted that the first appellate court had expressed doubts about the applicant's possession and that the status‑quo order dated 2 September 2004 remained operative. At the prima facie stage, the court found no basis to alter the existing order and therefore upheld the status‑quo injunction for the duration of the second appeal. The civil application was consequently disposed, with the status‑quo order continuing.
Issues considered
- Whether the status‑quo injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the applicant's possession should be modified or continued.
- Whether the applicant can be deemed to be in possession of the suit land for purposes of granting a temporary injunction.
Subjects
- temporary injunction
- status quo
- specific performance
- possession
- appeal
- contempt
- civil procedure
Judgment
11-cas-1127-2004.docx
rrpillai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1127 OF 2004
IN
SECOND APPEAL NO. 964 OF 2004
Sou. Alka Netaji Wagh … Applicant
Vs.
1. Sou Mina Bhagaji Awate … Respondents
and Others
Ms. Gauri Jadhav for the Applicant/Appellant
Mr. K. K. Malpathak for the Respondent No. 1.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATE : 8th APRIL 2026
ORDER :
1. This application is for seeking an order of temporary
injunction restraining respondent no. 1 i.e. original defendant
no. 5 from interfering with the applicant’s possession over the
suit land. The second appeal is admitted. In the civil
application notice was issued and ad-interim relief was
granted in terms of prayer for temporary injunction. However,
subsequently the injunction order is recalled and the parties
RAJESHWARI
Digitally signed
by RAJESHWARI
are directed to maintain status quo.
RAMESH PILLAI
RAMESH Date:
PILLAI 2026.04.15
10:47:05 +0530
1/3
11-cas-1127-2004.docx
2. The appellant is the original plaintiff whose suit for
specific performance was decreed by the trial court. The
appeal preferred by the defendant is allowed and the trial
court’s decree is reversed and the suit is dismissed.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial
courts findings accepting the plaintiffs possession over the
suit property is not disturbed by the first appellate court.
Hence, the first appellate court’s judgment also supports the
appellant’s contention that she is in possession of the suit
property. She submits that since respondent no. 1 is
disturbing the appellant’s possession and dispossessed the
appellant, contempt petition is filed alleging breach of the
order of status quo.
4. I have perused the papers of the second appeal and
the civil application. The first appellate court has framed a
point for consideration on possession and in paragraph 15
has recorded reasons for disbelieving the appellants
contention of being in possession.
5. Thus, at the prima facie stage it is difficult to ascertain
the correctness of the plaintiff’s contention of being in
2/3
11-cas-1127-2004.docx
possession. The order directing the parties to maintain status
quo has remained operative since 2004.
6. Hence, at this stage in view of the findings recorded by
the first appellate court in paragraph 14 of the judgment I see
no reason to modify the order passed by this court directing
the parties to maintain status quo. Hence, the order dated 2 nd
September 2004 directing the parties to maintain status quo
shall continue to operate during the pendency of the second
appeal.
7. The civil application is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
3/3
Checking your session…