KISAN SHIVRAM MODHAVE AND OTHERSversusASHA SUBHASH PIMPALE

2026:BHC-AUG:42819



                                                                         WP No.13866 of 2024


                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 WRIT PETITION NO.13866 OF 2024

            Kisan Shivram Modhave,
            Age : 65 Years, Occ. Agri.,
            All r/o. Wakodi,
            Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar
            and others                                                ..Petitioners
                     Vs.
            Asha Subhash Pimpale
            Age : 48 Years, Occ. Agri.,
            r/o. Wakodi,
            Tq and Dist. Ahmednagar                                   ..Respondent

                                               ----
            Mr.V.C.Solshe, Advocate for petitioners
            Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.Kunal Kale, Advocate
            for respondent
                                               ----

                                          CORAM :      AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                          DATE  :      SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
            PER COURT :-

                             The petitioners are defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.421

            of 2021 instituted by the plaintiff in the court of Civil Judge, Senior

            Division, Ahmednagar.        As per the contentions in the plaint, plaintiff’s

            Pathway Application was allowed. That, the petitioners to defeat the

            said order, obstructed the said pathway. In the suit, prayer was made

            seeking mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction and to reopen

            the pathway as was directed by the Tahsildar.               In the suit, the

            defendants/petitioners appeared and defended the suit on all counts.
                                        2                               WP No



It was sought to be submitted that the plaintiff and defendants are

adjoining land holders and the suit was to counter            right of the

defendant which was sought to be exercised by different proceedings

under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. An application under Order XXXIX

Rule 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff. After

hearing the both sides, the trial court pleased to grant temporary

injunction   in   favour   of    the   plaintiff/respondent   against   the

petitioners. The petitioners carried the order of injunction in Misc.

Civil Appeal No.30 of 2022 before the District Court, Ahmednagar.

After hearing the parties vide order dated 02.07.2024 learned

District Judge pleased to reject the appeal. As such, the defendants

has filed this Writ Petition.


2.           Mr.Solshe, learned advocate for the petitioners would

submit that there are more than one round of litigation between the

same parties. He would refer to another suit which is also pending

between same parties.           He submits that the plaintiff secured

injunction by taking undue benefit of the proceedings those were

filed before the revenue authorities. He would submit that under the

garb of injunction order the plaintiff attempted to disturb the

possession of the petitioners over their own property. With this, he

would submit that the Writ Petition be allowed.
                                       3                                       WP No



3.          Mr.Deshmukh,        learned    senior       advocate         for   the

respondents/plaintiffs would stand by the reasons rendered by the

trial court as also by the first appellate court. He would submit that

both the courts have tested the case of the plaintiff on the principles

of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. He

would submit that the suit would proceed further and injunction

clamped against the present petitioners is in operation since

04.10.2021.   He would submit that it would not be               proper in the

interest of justice to upset the said order which was even confirmed

by the first appellate court which has examined the facts of the case.

He would submit that it would be appropriate in the interest of

justice if the Writ Petition is disposed of with direction to the trial

court to conclude the suit proceedings in a time bound manner.


4.          Considered    the      submissions        advanced      by    learned

advocates for the parties.


5.          Apparently,      the   petitioner    is     suffering    temporary

injunction issued by the trial court since 04.10.2021.              Correctness

and legality of the temporary injunction granted by the trial court

was examined by the first appellate court also. The first appellate

court after hearing both the parties and considering the documents

placed before it, has arrived at conclusion to counter with the
                                       4                           WP No



findings rendered by the trial court. At this juncture, it would not be

just and proper to disturb those findings which are recorded on the

facts placed before the court. Instead, I am of the considered view

to dispose of the Writ Petition to conclude the suit proceedings in a

time bound manner and expeditiously within a period of eight

months from the date of this order.


6.          In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of

in terms of the following order:-


A)          The order dated 04.10.2021 passed by learned 2 nd Jt.

Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, on application Exh.5 in

Regular Civil Suit No.421 of 2021 and the judgment and order dated

02.07.2024 passed by learned District Judge-5, Ahmednagar in

M.C.A. No.30 of 2022 do not call for interference at this stage.


B)          Considering the nature of litigation which is pending

between the two adjoining land holders, the trial court is requested

to conclude the suit proceeding expeditiously and preferably within a

period of eight months from the date of this order.


C)          It is clarified that this court has not commended on the

merit of the case of either parties.
                              5                        WP No



D)    All contentions are kept open.




                           [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
                         ………..


KBP