ASHABAI SUBHASH PIMPALE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:42821



                                                                         24-sr33.wp10793.2024


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  WRIT PETITION NO.10793 OF 2024

            Ashabai Subhash Pimpale,
            Age:45 Years, Occ. Agri.
            r/o. Wakodi,
            Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar
            and others                                                  ..Petitioners

                     Vs.

            The State of Maharashtra
            and others                                                  ..Respondents

                                              ----
            Ms.Pradnya Talekar, Advocate h/f. Talekar and Associates for petitioners
            Mr.Vinesh Solshe, Advocate for respondent nos.6 to 15, 16, 17A to 17D,
            18 to 22
            Mr.K.B.Jadhavar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 5
                                              ----

                                           CORAM :       AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                           DATE  :       SEPTEMBER 15, 2026

            PER COURT :-

                             Heard learned advocates for the parties extensively.

            Considering the short controversy involved in the petition, the same is

            heard for final disposal at the stage of admission.


            2.               The petitioners are plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 173 of

            2022 pending before learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar

            who suffered refusal by the trial court to grant temporary injunction

            against the respondents/defendants.
                                    2                      24-sr33.wp10793



3.         Ms.Talekar, learned advocate for the petitioners, in short

submits that the petitioners and the respondents are adjoining

agriculturists and hold adjoining agricultural lands.     She would

submit that there occurred discord between them taking to the

usage of pathway to each other’s land. The respondents instituted

proceedings under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar’s Court’s Act 1906

against the petitioners seeking directions against them      to allow

usage of pathway to their land. A panchnama was placed on record

to substantiate the claim.    The petitioners appeared before the

Mamlatdar and disputed the plaint. They placed on record a village-

map which demonstrated that there was no such pathway passing

through the petitioners land and instead there was an independent

approach road available to the respondents. However, vide order

dated 17.06.2022, The Mamlatdar/Tahsildar, Ahmednagar pleased to

grant relief sought by the respondents.



4.        Instead of taking up that order in revision under Section 23

of the Act of 1906, the petitioners rushed to the Civil Court vide

Regular Civil Suit No.173 of 2022 with comprehensive prayers.          In

the civil suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w.

151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiffs seeking

temporary injunction against the defendants/present respondents.
                                      3                      24-sr33.wp10793



The respondents/defendants appeared in the suit and defended the

same by filing their written statement.         Obviously, there were

contrary pleadings from both the sides.       The petitioners/plaintiffs

who was in fact aggrieved by the findings recorded by the

Mamlatdar, tried to convince the trial court by producing on record

all the documents and particularly the village map wherein an

available road for the usage      of the respondents/defendants was

clearly mentioned.     Ms. Talekar, learned advocate for the petitioners

submits that despite there being this document on record, the trial

court without even discussing a single line on that village map,

pleased to reject her application. She would take me to paragraph 17

of   the order passed by the trial court wherein it is observed that

except the disputed pathway there was no other approach road

available to the defendants.     She submits that had the trial court

seen keenly the said document, i.e. village map, the findings would

have been otherwise. Feeling aggrieved by the refusal by the trial

court to grant interim injunction, the plaintiffs then rushed to the

District Court and filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.175 of 2022.         After

hearing both the parties learned District Judge-5, Ahmednagar vide

judgment and order dated 29.07.2024 concurred with the findings

recorded by the trial court.    Against that order, the plaintiffs have

filed this Writ Petition.
                                     4                          24-sr33.wp10793



5.          Ms.Talekar, learned advocate for the petitioners/plaintiffs

would submit that       in the appeal memo also, the petitioners

categorically invited attention of the appellate     court to     the vital

document i.e. village map. It was well within the jurisdiction of the

first appellate court to consider the said map and to take exception

to the findings recorded by the trial court. She submits that merely

by concurring the findings recorded by the trial, the appeal also

came to be turned down. She would submit that the village map is

a vital document which ought to have been considered by both the

courts while deciding her application for temporary injunction. She

submits that the case of the plaintiffs/petitioners was fully covered

by the three parameters required for grant of injunction:(i) prima

facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable loss. It is

her contention that if the village map is seen, it would straightway

show a strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. Failure on

the part of both the courts below to consider the said document

while adjudicating the application for temporary injunction has

resulted into irreparable loss to her client.          The balance of

convenience for grant of injunction was clearly in favour of the

petitioners/plaintiffs. With such arguments, Ms.Talekar prays to allow

the petition.
                                      5                       24-sr33.wp10793



6.           Mr.Solshe, learned advocate for the respondents would

stand by the reasoning rendered by the trial court as also the first

appellate court.        He would submit that the defendants were

constrained to take recourse to Section 5 of the 1906 Act as there

was obstruction by the plaintiffs/petitioners to the existing pathway

that was being used by his client. He would submit that both the

orders under challenge contain exhaustive reasoning rendered by

the courts below and no error can be found therein. He thus prays to

dismiss the petition.


7.           Considered     the   submissions   advanced    by   learned

advocates for both sides. Apparently the suit is filed in 2022. The

petitioners suffered rejection of their application for temporary

injunction vide order dated 01.12.2022. In the later proceedings also

there was no favourable order for the petitioners. It is informed that

the pleadings are concluded and the trial court is to proceed further

by framing issues.       Much emphasis is given on the village map,

which apparently I find that both the courts below have not at all

discussed.


8.              It is trite law that when there is an issue in respect of

an existing pathway, creation of pathway and obstruction to the

existing pathway as also any variance in the existing pathway, the
                                      6                      24-sr33.wp10793



Government document, i.e. village map has much significance. The

Courts are certainly bound to render some observations on such

document even when applications for temporary injunction are

pressed into service by respective parties.       I find that the said

exercise is not done by the trial court as also by the first appellate

court.


9.            Considering that the civil suit is of 2022 and as observed

above the petitioners have failed to get a positive and favourable

order firstly in the month of December, 2022, I deem it appropriate

to dispose of the Writ Petition requesting the trial court to proceed

with the suit expeditiously in a time bound manner.


10.           Hence, I pass following order:-


A)            The Writ Petition stands disposed with a request to the

trial court to frame issues within a period of one month from today.

Both the parties are at liberty to propose the issues for decision by

the trial court.


B)            Thereafter, the trial court is requested to expedite the

suit proceedings and to conclude the same within eight months

thereafter.
                                     7                         24-sr33.wp10793



C)          suffice it to note, the observations rendered by the trial

court as also by the first appellate court while deciding the

application for temporary injunction are restricted to the extent of

those proceedings only. The trial court shall not be influenced by any

of the observations made by it while deciding the application for

temporary injunction, the observations made by the first appellate

court as also this court.


D)          It is expected that the trial court shall give due weight-

age to the village map produced by the plaintiffs on record as is

permissible in law and subject to the opportunity to the defendants

to dispute the contents of the village map.


E)          All contentions of the parties are kept open.


F)          With   these    observations,   the   Writ   Petition   stands

disposed of.




                                  [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                                ………..


KBP