Bombay High Court
VIJAY PRABHAKAR NARLE AND ANOTHERversusKISAN SANDU MAGAR AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- AJIT B KADETHANKAR
Holding
The High Court disposed the writ petition and directed the trial court to conclude the suit within eight months, keeping the respondents' contentions open.
Summary
Petitioners Vijay Prabhakar Narle and others filed a writ petition challenging the findings of the Junior Division Civil Judge, Sillod, and the District Judge, Sambhajinagar, which had allowed the respondents' application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a subsequent application under Section 151 seeking police aid. The petitioners also appealed the trial court’s order to the District Judge, but that appeal was dismissed. The petitioners sought a direction from the High Court for the trial court to conclude the suit on its merits within a fixed period. The Court observed that the prayer was moderate and that the petitioners were free to pursue other legal remedies, but it could still intervene to ensure a timely disposal of the trial. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed with an order directing the Junior Division Civil Judge, Sillod, to finish the trial within eight months, while keeping the respondents’ contentions open.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court may direct a trial court to conclude a pending suit within a specified time frame.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite prior orders under Order 39 and Section 151 CPC.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2, Section 151
Subjects
- writ petition
- Civil Procedure Code
- Order 39
- Section 151
- temporary injunction
- time‑bound trial
- High Court direction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:9766
1-wp14102.2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.14102 OF 2025
Vijay Prabhakar Narle
and ors. ..Petitioners
Vs.
Kisan Sandu Magar
and ors. ..Respondents
----
Mr.Satish Dhobale, Advocate for petitioners
Mr.V.S.Bhale, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 7
----
CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : MARCH 04, 2026
ORDER :-
The petitioner is aggrieved of the findings rendered by
learned Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sillod and learned District Judge-
12, Chh. Sambhajinagar. The application filed by the present
respondents under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 came to be allowed by learned trial court.
2. The appeal filed by the present petitioner before learned
District Judge-12, Chh. Sambhajinagar has also been turned down by
learned appellate court. As against this, the petitioner has present this
petition.
2 1-wp14102
3. Mr.Dhoble however submits that after passing the order
of temporary injunction, the application under Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure was moved by the respondents/plaintiffs,
seeking police aid. That application came to be allowed by learned
trial court. Mr.Dhoble learned counsel would submit that the
petitioner is also aggrieved of the said order passed by learned trial
court under section 151 CPC. Needless to mention said order is not
part of the cause of the present petition and the petitioner is at
liberty to take appropriate legal recourse as is available in law.
4. After arguing the matter for sometime, Mr. Dhobale,
learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that the petition may
be disposed of with a direction to learned trial court to conclude the
trial in a time bound manner.
5. I find that the prayer made by learned counsel for the
petitioner is moderate one and hence, I pass the following order:-
(i) The Writ Petition is disposed with a request to learned Jt.
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sillod, to make every endeavour to
conclude the trial and dispose of the suit on merits within period of
eight months from today.
3 1-wp14102
(ii) All contentions of respondents are kept open.
[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
KBP
Checking your session…