Bombay High Court
MANGESH DATTATRAY GHUMATKAR AND ORSversusMANIK BAJIRAO PATOLE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed and the district judge is directed to decide the pending appeal expeditiously.
Summary
The petitioners sought a stay on an order allowing the municipal council to excavate a 15‑ft strip of their suit plot for a drainage pipeline, claiming a 30‑ft separation from the plaintiffs and potential irreparable loss. The district judge had rejected their stay application. The petitioners argued that the excavation would affect their share of the layout. The court noted that a miscellaneous civil appeal on the same issue is pending before the appellate court and that the trial court had already permitted the excavation. Consequently, the court found no merit in entertaining the petition and directed the district judge to decide the pending appeal promptly. The petition was therefore disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petition seeking a stay of the excavation order is maintainable in view of the pending miscellaneous civil appeal.
- Whether the district court's order allowing the municipal council to excavate the 15‑ft area should be set aside.
Subjects
- civil appeal
- stay order
- municipal council
- excavation
- drainage pipeline
- property rights
- irreparable loss
Judgment
903-WP-12387-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12387 OF 2026
Mangesh Dattatray Ghumatkar and Ors ..Petitioners
Versus
Manik Bajirao Patole and Ors …Respondents
Mr. Pranav H Bhoite, for the Petitioners.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 29th SEPTEMBER 2026
ORAL ORDER.:
1. Heard Mr. Pranav Bhoite, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners.
2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 7 th September
2026 passed by the learned District Judge, Khed-Rajgurunagar, whereby
an Application preferred by the Petitioners-Appellants seeking stay to
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
the execution and operation of an order passed by the learned Civil
Digitally signed by
ARUN
RAMCHANDRA
SANKPAL
Date: 2026.09.30
Judge on 1st August 2026, directing Defendant No. 8-Municipal Council,
17:42:02 +0530
Rajgurunagar, not to excavate the suit plot of the Plaintiffs except the
15 ft width area of the suit plot reserved for the public road, came to be
rejected.
3. Mr. Bhoite, the learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that,
a 30 ft wide area separates the plots of the Petitioners and the Plaintiffs,
and the 15 ft area abutting the plots of the Plaintiff has already been
ARS 1/2
903-WP-12387-2026.DOC
developed by the Plaintiffs and 15 ft area of the suit plot through which
Defendant No. 8-Municipal Council is permitted to excavate for laying
the drainage pipeline falls to the share of the Petitioners in the
sanctioned layout. Thus, if stay is not granted the Petitioners will suffer
irreparable loss.
4. As the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal preferred by the Petitioners
awaits adjudication before the Appellate Court and the trial Court has
specifically permitted the Municipal Council to excavate the 15ft wide
area reserved for public road, for laying the drainage pipeline, at this
juncture, there is no propriety in entertaining this Petition.
5. In the circumstances of the case, this Court considers it expedient
to direct the District Judge to hear and decide the Miscellaneous Civil
Appeal No. 39 of 2026, finally as expeditiously as possible and,
preferably, within a period of two months from the date of
communication of this order.
6. Petition disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
ARS 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.