Bombay High Court

KESHAV DADARAO TANDALEversusCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BEED AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The Court ordered the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the suit, without staying the suit, and directed the trial court to conclude the suit within eight months.

Summary

The petitioner, Keshav Dadarao Tandale, filed a writ petition challenging the trial court and appellate court's refusal to grant relief under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking protection during the pendency of his civil suit. The High Court noted that the suit was at the stage of leading evidence and that the trial court was hesitant to proceed due to the status‑quo direction previously issued. The Court clarified that no stay of suit proceedings was ordered, only a direction to maintain status quo until the suit’s disposal. Consequently, the Court directed both parties to continue observing the status quo and instructed the Junior Civil Judge to conclude the suit within eight months, prohibiting any further adjournments. The writ petition was therefore disposed of with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition seeking a stay of the civil suit proceedings under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 and Section 151 CPC is maintainable
Whether the High Court can direct a status‑quo without staying the suit proceedings
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the suit and limit adjournments

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2, Section 151

Subjects

Writ Petition
Status quo
Civil Procedure Code
Order 39
Section 151
Expedited trial
Stay of suit
High Court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:37408



                                                      1
                                                                    941-wp-11867-2023

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 11867 OF 2023

                                        Keshav Dadarao Tandale
                                                VERSUS
                      Chief Executive Officer Municipal Council Beed And Others
                                                   ...
                     Mr. T. M. Tandale, Advocate for the Petitioner
                     Mr. B. V. Virdhe, AGP for Respondent-State
                     Mr. R. D. Khadap, Advocate for Respondent no.1
                     Mr. M. R. Malpani, Advocate for Respondent nos.2 and 3
                                                  …..
                                          CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 18TH AUGUST, 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties for

                     quite some time.

                     2.        Writ Petition arises at the behest of the plaintiff in

                     Regular Civil Suit No.54 of 2023 who has suffered concurrent

                     findings by the Trial Court and the first Appellate Court

                     whereby an application filed below Order 39 Rule 1 and 2

                     read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code has been

                     turned down. The plaintiff filed this Writ Petition challenging

                     both the orders and seeking protection during the pendency of

                     the suit. While issuing notice on 25.09.2023, this Court

                     directed the parties to maintain status quo.
                                    2
                                                    941-wp-11867-2023

3.       Consequent to the notice issued by this Court, the

defendants/respondents caused their appearance in this

matter and lodged their reply affidavit. Today, when the

matter is taken up for hearing, this Court is apprised by both

the learned Advocates for the respective parties that the suit is

now at the stage of leading evidence.

4.       Mr.   M.   R.   Malpani,       learned   Advocate   for   the

respondents would however submit that although the suit is

pending since long, on account of the status quo granted by

this Court, the Trial Court is hesitating to proceed with the

suit.

5.       Suffice to note, this Court has cautiously directed the

parties to maintain status quo. There was no stay to the suit

proceedings.

6.       May it be, considering that the suit is of the year 2023

and the parties are observing status quo directions issued by

this Court vide order dated 25.09.2023, I deem it appropriate

to direct the parties to continue to maintain status quo till

disposal of the Civil Suit. In view of this, I pass following

order:
                                     3
                                                      941-wp-11867-2023

                                   ORDER

        a.       Writ Petition stands disposed of with
        directions to both the parties to maintain status
        quo till disposal of the suit.

        b.       Learned Jt. Civil Judge Junior Division,
        Beed      is   requested    to     conclude    the   suit
        proceedings as expeditiously as possible and in
        any case within (08) eight months from today.

        c.       The parties candidly undertake not to seek
        any adjournment or cause unnecessary delay in
        the suit proceedings.



                                         ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…