Bombay High Court
ANUJA SANTOSH REDDYversusASHOK TRIMBAK AJNIKAR AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The High Court held that the District Judge’s order quashing the temporary injunction was erroneous and set it aside, directing that the injunction remain effective until a Court Commissioner determines the exact boundaries.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of the District Judge that quashed a temporary injunction granted by the trial court in a property dispute concerning the boundaries of Gat Nos. 117 and 118. The trial court had restrained the defendants from constructing on the suit plot based on a measurement map and photographs. The District Judge set aside that injunction, finding no material evidence that the defendants had crossed the boundary, but the High Court noted that the photographs could not be relied upon at the prima facie stage. The parties subsequently filed a joint pursis agreeing to appoint a Court Commissioner for joint measurement of the disputed boundaries, and the High Court directed that the injunction remain in force until the commissioner’s report is filed. Consequently, the impugned order of the District Judge was quashed and the writ petition was disposed with liberty to file an application for the commissioner’s appointment.
Issues considered
- Whether the District Judge was justified in quashing the temporary injunction granted by the trial court.
- Whether the parties should be directed to appoint a Court Commissioner for joint measurement of the disputed boundaries.
- Whether the temporary injunction should continue to operate pending the commissioner’s report.
Subjects
- boundary dispute
- temporary injunction
- court commissioner
- joint measurement
- writ petition
- civil suit
- property
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:9340
107-wp-14366-2025.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 14366 OF 2025
Anuja Santosh Reddy
VERSUS
Ashok Trimbak Ajnikar And Another
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Patil Jayant R.
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Vaibhav B. Dhage
...
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 04, 2026
PER COURT :-
1. Present writ petition takes exception to order dated
28.10.2025 passed by learned District Judge-2, Latur in Misc. Civil
Appeal No.48 of 2025 by which order dated 17.04.2025 passed by
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur granting temporary injunction in
Special Civil Suit No.286 of 2024 has been quashed and set aside.
Aggrieved plaintiff filed this writ petition.
2. Mr. Jayant Patil, learned advocate appearing for
petitioner submits that suit is instituted for declaration of ownership
and perpetual injunction in respect of suit property. The plaintiff had
relied upon measurement map, whereby boundaries of his gat
numbers were fixed. The Trial Court relying upon aforesaid evidence
along with photographs tendered by parties granted temporary
injunction restraining defendants from putting up construction over
107-wp-14366-2025.odt
(2)
suit plot and thereby causing any interference in possession of
plaintiff till final disposal of suit.
3. In appeal filed by defendants, learned District Judge was
pleased to quash and set aside order mainly observing that there is no
material to show that defendants had crossed boundary marks and
raised construction over property of plaintiff. The Appellate Court
observed that photographs depicts removal of fencing and
construction has been raised. However, such photographs cannot be
relied on at prima facie stage.
4. Looking to controversy involved in suit, it is evident that
this is a dispute as to boundary of Gat Nos.117 and 118. In this
backdrop, learned advocates appearing for respective parties have
filed joint pursis dated 04.03.2026, whereby plaintiff and defendants
agreed to appoint Court Commissioner for joint measurement and
fixing of boundaries of Gat Nos.117 and 118. It is also agreed that
defendants would not object for joint measurement and fixation of
boundaries. The Deputy Superintendent of Land Record, Latur to be
appointed as Court Commissioner. Till receipt of report of Court
Commissioner, the parties would act upon order dated 17.04.2025
passed below Exhibit-5 in Special Civil Suit No.286 of 2024. The joint
pursis is taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification.
5. In that view of matter, writ petition stands disposed of
with liberty in favour of petitioner to file an application for
107-wp-14366-2025.odt
(3)
appointment of Court Commissioner. The Trial Court shall pass
necessary orders on the basis of joint pursis directing appointment of
Court Commissioner, who shall submit his report within a period of
eight weeks from date of order or deposit of necessary fees by
petitioner/plaintiff. The Court shall pass further order as to interim
injunction based on Commissioner’s report. Till then, parties to act
upon injunction order dated 17.04.2025 passed below Exhibit-5 by
Trial Court. The impugned order dated 28.10.2025 passed by District
Judge is quashed and set aside.
(S.G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)
Mujaheed//
Checking your session…