Bombay High Court

UKHARDU RAWA PATILversusNIMBABAI HIMMAT PATIL AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The High Court declined to set aside the temporary injunction and instead directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.

Summary

The petitioner, originally Defendant No.5 in a civil suit seeking cancellation of a sale deed and a permanent injunction, challenged a temporary injunction granted by the Junior Civil Judge. An appeal against that injunction was filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and was dismissed by the District Judge. The petitioner contended that the trial court ignored a crucial ownership document showing the sale deed was executed by the plaintiff’s father and that the property was purchased by the predecessor in title of the respondents. The High Court held that, given the order was dated 11‑04‑2023 and the suit was already at the evidence stage with two orders favoring the plaintiff, it was not appropriate to interfere with the injunction. Instead, the Court directed the trial court to conclude the suit within eight months and disposed of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should interfere with a temporary injunction order at the evidence stage of the suit.
Whether the omission of the ownership document by the trial and appellate courts warrants setting aside the injunction.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order XLIII Rule 1

Subjects

temporary injunction
Civil Appeal
Order XLIII Rule 1 CPC
evidence stage
property dispute
sale deed
high court writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:41954


                                                   1                        927.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 12072 OF 2026

                                    UKHARDU RAWA PATIL
                                               VERSUS
                          NIMBABAI HIMMAT PATIL AND OTHERS
                                                  ...
                     Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Warma Bharatkumar Ramdeo
                                                 …
                                       CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                                       DATE : 09th SEPTEMBER, 2026

              PER COURT :

              1.           The Petitioner is the original Defendant no. 5 in a suit

              bearing Regular Civil Suit no. 46/2021, instituted by the present

              Respondent no. 1, for canceling of sale deed and permanent injunction.

              An Application for temporary injunction in the suit filed by the Plaintiff,

              filed below Exhibit 6 was allowed vide order dated 10.02.2022, by the

              Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Parola.


              2.           The Petitioner being aggrieved by the said decision, has

              preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no. 04/2022, under Order XLIII

              Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the District Judge - 2,

              Amalner, challenging the said order of injunction. The said Appeal was

              also rejected vide order dated 11.04.2023. According to the learned

              Advocate for the Petitioner while appreciating the documents placed on
                                      2                       927.odt


record, the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has failed to take

into consideration the document which reflected the ownership of the

present Petitioner. He submits that the property ownership card shows

that a sale deed has been executed by Lukdu Ekoba who was the father of

the Plaintiffs and the property was purchased by Yadav Ekoba who was

the predecessor in title of the Respondent nos. 2 to 5. This important

document has been totally ignored while granting injunction in favour of

the Plaintiff. During the course of arguments, when the learned Advocate

for the Petitioner was asked regarding what is the stage of the suit, he

informs that the suit is at the stage of evidence.


3.           Considering that the order impugned is dated 11.04.2023,

and there are two orders passed in favour of the Plaintiffs, in my view, it

would not be appropriate to interfere in the suit at this stage. However,

considering the grounds raised by the Petitioner, it would be appropriate

to request the trial Court to conclude the suit as early as possible

preferably within a period of eight months from the date of this order.


4.           With the aforementioned observations, the Writ Petition

stands disposed of.



                                       ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )
SPC

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…