Bombay High Court

RAMCHANDRA POPAT SATAVversusDATTATRAY GANPAT SATAV AND ORS

Disposal: Allowed

Holding

The High Court held that the petitioner had made out a prima facie case and that the lower courts erred by considering extraneous easement issues, thereby granting the temporary injunction.

Summary

Ramchandra Popat Satav, the owner of land Gat No. 630/2 in Solapur, filed a regular civil suit seeking perpetual and temporary injunctions against Dattatray Ganpat Satav and others for alleged obstruction of his cultivation. The respondents claimed a 12‑foot customary road on the western side of the land, used for over 70 years, and alleged that the petitioner obstructed its use. The lower courts rejected the temporary injunction, giving weight to a Circle Officer’s report on the road and deeming the easement claim relevant. The petitioner challenged these orders by filing a writ petition, arguing that the courts misdirected themselves by considering extraneous easement issues, that he had made out a prima facie case, and that balance of convenience and potential irreparable loss favored granting the injunction. The High Court held that the lower courts erred, that the petitioner’s prima facie case was established, and that the extraneous considerations should not affect the injunction application. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the earlier orders were quashed, and the temporary injunction was granted, with no order as to costs.

Issues considered

The lower courts erred in considering the respondents' claim of a customary easement as a material factor in deciding the temporary injunction application.
Whether the petitioner had made out a prima facie case for a temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.
Whether the balance of convenience and risk of irreparable loss favored granting the injunction to the petitioner.
Whether the proceedings under Section 5 of the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act affect the petitioner’s claim for injunction.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2
Mamlatdar’s Courts Act — s. Section 5

Subjects

temporary injunction
perpetual injunction
easement
prima facie case
balance of convenience
irreparable loss
Order 39 CPC
Mamlatdar’s Courts Act
land ownership
civil suit
writ jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                         27 WP 12245 OF 2025.odt

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  27 WRIT PETITION NO. 12245 OF 2025

                        RAMCHANDRA POPAT SATAV
                                   VERSUS
                    DATTATRAY GANPAT SATAV AND ORS
                                      ...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. R. M. Haridas i/by Mr. Prasad Pradeep Kulkarni
                           a/w Adv. Nakul Shukla
 Advocate for Respondents : Adv. Bhagyashri Mangle a/w Adv. Ketan Patil
                        i/by Jagadish Anand Dagade
                                      ...
                      CORAM               : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                     DATE                 : 07.10.2026


PER COURT :

       Heard both sides.

2.    The petitioner is challenging the concurrent findings of facts in

rejecting his application for temporary injunction in Regular Civil Suit No.

228/2023.


3.    Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that both the Courts below

committed apparent error of jurisdiction in failing to project enquiry qua the

suit land. The consideration of customary road from Western boundary of

the suit land, its existence and plea of alternate road are extraneous.    It is

submitted that the petitioner has made out prima facie case qua the suit

land and there is no dispute about his ownership. Both Courts below is

stated to have taken into account the material, which does not pertain to


                                                                            1/4
                                                         27 WP 12245 OF 2025.odt

cause of action in the present suit and misdirected enquiry is conducted.


4.    The learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned

orders.   It is submitted that the concurrent findings of facts have been

arrived at, which cannot be disturbed the writ jurisdiction. It is further

submitted that the existence of the road is evident from the enquiry report

of Circle Officer. As the petitioner has obstructed the respondents from

customary use of the road, the application is rightly rejected. It is further

submitted that the petitioner failed to prove alternate road. The findings of

both the Courts below are plausible and reasonable.


5.    I have considered the rival submissions of the parties. The petitioner

has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 228/2023 for perpetual injunction along

with application Exh. 5 for temporary injunction. He claims to be owner of

land Gat No. 630/2 measuring 1-H 20 Are situated at Mhaisgaon Tq.

Madha, Dist. Solapur. The cause of action stated in paragraph nos. 3 and 4

is the obstruction by respondents/defendants while cultivating the land.


6.    I have carefully gone through the written statement filed by defendant

no. 5 as well as defendant nos. 1, 10, 12 and 13. Besides denying the claim

of the petitioner, they have put forth additional plea that there existed 12

feet approach road from the Western side bandh inside Gat No. 630/2,

which is being used since 70 or more years. They have further come up with

stand that the petitioner obstructed the villagers as well as respondents from

using the road.   It appears that the proceedings under Section 5 of the

                                                                            2/4
                                                         27 WP 12245 OF 2025.odt

Mamlatdar’s Courts Act have also been lodged by the respondents, which are

pending, claiming removal of obstruction from the approach road pleaded

by them.


7.    I have gone through the findings recorded by the both Courts below.

The ownership of the petitioner over land Gat No. 630/2 is not disputed.

His possession over the suit land is also not disputed. Both Courts below

misdirected themselves on a plea raised by the respondents/ defendants

claiming easementary right from the Western boundary of the suit land.

That was not the cause of action for the petitioner. If the ownership and

possession of the petitioner over the suit land have not been challenged,

only conclusion would be that prima facie case is made out.


8.    It is trite law that the Court, dealing with application under Order 39

Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is obliged to take into

consideration the prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable

loss. In the present case, the prima facie case and balance of convenience

are dealt with from respondents point of view, which is error apparent on

the face of the record. The respondents have neither filed counter claim nor

filed any independent suit on the cause of action that there was obstruction

to the easementary right. The proceedings initiated under Section 5 of the

Mamlatdar’s Courts Act cannot be said to be the circumstance to belie the

petitioner’s theory.   The existence of the road, the obstruction to it or

alternate road would be independent enquiry, which cannot fall within



                                                                            3/4
                                                           27 WP 12245 OF 2025.odt

realm of the present controversy.


9.      The findings recorded by the Courts below would indicate that the

report of the Circle Officer regarding existence of the road is given undue

weightage. The existence of the road or failure on the part of the petitioner

to show alternate road are extraneous consideration for the claim under

Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C. P. C. The petitioner has made out prima facie

case and if the obstruction is continued, he is likely to face irreparable loss.

The petitioner is an agriculturist and being owner he is entitled to cultivate

his land without any obstruction. Under these circumstances, I find that

case is made out to cause interference in the impugned judgments and

orders.


10.     Writ Petition is allowed. The order dated 06.09.2024 passed below

Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 228/2023 as well as judgment and order

dated 01.11.2025 passed by District Judge -1 Barshi in Misc. Civil Appeal

NO. 56/2025 are quashed and set aside.


11.     The application Exh. 5 in Regular Civil Suit No. 228/2023 shall stand

allowed.


12.     There shall be no order as to costs.



                                        ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)



mkd/-

                                                                              4/4

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…