Bombay High Court
SOMNATH RAMHARI GAWADE AND ORSversusDILIP SHIVRAM NAGARE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- N JAMADAR
Holding
The High Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage and ordered the trial court to decide the temporary injunction application expeditiously.
Summary
The petitioners, Somnath Ramhari Gawade and others, filed a writ petition challenging a District Judge's order that refused an ex‑parte ad‑interim injunction while a Miscellaneous Civil Appeal was pending. The underlying dispute concerned a Tahsildar's order under Section 143 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which the petitioners claimed was illegal and sought a status‑quo injunction. The Civil Judge had rejected the injunction application, invoking Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act because an appeal was sub‑judice before the Sub‑Divisional Officer. The petitioners argued that the appeal had been withdrawn and that a State Government work order for a road over their property necessitated immediate injunction. The High Court held that the writ petition was not the appropriate forum while the lower courts were still considering the interim relief, and directed the trial court to hear and decide the injunction application expeditiously and to consider impleading the State Government if necessary. The petition was consequently disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition can be entertained to challenge an interim order of a lower court when the same relief is pending before that court.
- Whether Section 41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act bars the grant of an interim injunction in the presence of a pending appeal.
- Whether the State Government can be impleaded as a defendant in the suit concerning the road work.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 143
- Specific Relief Act — s. 41(ha)
Subjects
- writ petition
- interim injunction
- Specific Relief Act
- Section 41(ha)
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- Section 143
- ex‑parte injunction
- subjudice
- impleading party
- state government
- road work
Judgment
36-WP-1292-2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1292 OF 2026
Somnath Ramhari Gawade and Ors ..Petitioners
Versus
Dilip Shivram Nagare and Ors …Respondents
Mr. Sushant Prabhune, for the petitioner.
CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 02nd FEBRUARY 2026
ORAL ORDER:
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 05 th
January, 2026 passed by the learned District Judge in
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 01/2026 whereby the learned
Digitally signed by
District Judge declined to grant an ex-parte ad-interim
SANTOSH SANTOSH
SUBHASH
SUBHASH KULKARNI
KULKARNI Date: 2026.02.03
19:18:35 +0530
injunction, during the pendency of the Miscellaneous Civil
Appeal.
3. The Miscellaneous Civil Appeal is preferred against an
order dated 03rd January, 2026 passed by the learned Civil
Judge, Baramati, whereby an application preferred by the
petitioners for grant of status-quo in respect of the order dated
03rd December, 2025 passed by the Tahsildar under Section 143
SAINATH 1/4
36-WP-1292-2026.DOC
of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 in Rasta Case No.
143/SR/11/2025, came to be rejected.
4. In RCS No. 01/2026, the petitioners-plaintiffs have prayed
for a declaration that, the order passed by the Tahsildar dated
03rd December, 2025 in Rasta Case No. 143/SR/11/2025 is
illegal and for the consequential relief of injunction during the
pendency of the said suit. The petitioners have taken out an
application for temporary injunction. In addition, the petitioners
?led the application for grant of status-quo.
5. By the order dated 03rd January, 2026, the learned Civil
Judge rejected the application as at that point of time an appeal
preferred by the petitioners against the order passed by the
Tahsildar under Section 143 was subjudice before the Sub-
Divisional Of?cer, Baramati and the learned Civil Judge was of
the view that, the bar under Section 41 (ha) of the Speci?c Relief
act, would come into play.
6. Mr. Prabhune, the learned Counsel for the petitioners
submits that, the petitioners have withdrawn the said appeal
?led before the Sub-Divisional Of?cer, Baramati and challenge
to the order passed by the Tahsildar, survives only in the instant
suit. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted
that, the State Government has issued a work order dated 22 nd
SAINATH 2/4
36-WP-1292-2026.DOC
December, 2025, in respect of the road which is proposed to be
laid over the property of the plaintiffs and, therefore, the interim
injunction is required to be granted.
7. Since the impugned orders are passed by the learned Civil
Judge and the learned District Judge at an interim stage while
an application for temporary injunction awaits adjudication
before the Court of ?rst instance, in exercise of writ jurisdiction,
this Court does not ?nd it expedient to entertain the petition.
8. The Court also ?nds that, the petitioners are aggrieved by
the work order issued by the State Government dated 22 nd
December, 2025. It does not appear that, the State Government
is a party defendant to the suit.
9. In these circumstances, the Court considers it appropriate
to request the learned Civil Judge to hear and decide the
application for temporary injunction as expeditiously as
possible.
10. The Court is informed that, the application for temporary
injunction is listed before the Trial Court today. If the said
application is not heard today, the learned Civil Judge is
requested to post the application for hearing in the next week,
hear and decide the same as expeditiously as possible and
SAINATH 3/4
36-WP-1292-2026.DOC
having regard to the exigency of the situation, preferably , within
a period of two months from the next listing of the application.
11. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioners
submits that, the petitioners-plaintiffs will ?le an application to
implead the State Government as a party defendant to the suit.
12. In the event such an application is ?led, within a period of
one week, the learned Civil Judge is requested to hear and
decide the said application expeditiously.
13. The petition stands disposed.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
SAINATH 4/4
Checking your session…