Bombay High Court

DEVIDAS BHASKR THORAT AND OTHERSversusGULAB EKNATH THORAT

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the District Court’s order and directing the trial court to complete the suit within eight months.

Summary

The petitioners, who are defendants in Civil Suit No.148 of 2023, faced a temporary injunction issued by the trial court in favor of the respondent who sought specific performance of a sale deed. The respondent appealed the trial court’s findings, and the District Court set aside the injunction. The petitioners filed a writ petition under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking to have the injunction restored. The High Court observed that the injunction had been in force since January 2024 and that the trial was still pending, finding no merit in disturbing the District Court’s order at this stage. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition and directed the trial court to conclude the suit within eight months, basing its decision solely on the evidence presented at trial.

Issues considered

Whether the temporary injunction granted by the trial court should be stayed or set aside by the High Court.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the District Court’s order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC.
Whether the trial court’s findings on the injunction can be revisited during the pendency of the suit.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XXXIX Rule 1, Order XXXIX Rule 2, Section 151

Subjects

temporary injunction
specific performance
civil suit
writ petition
Order XXXIX
Section 151 CPC
stay of injunction
trial court
district court
high court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:46382

8-Writ Petition No.2517 of 2024.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.2517 OF 2024

Devidas Bhaskar Thorat
Age : 34 Years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o. Rui, Baramati, Kumbhar Wasti,
Tq. Baramati, Dist. Pune
and others ..Petitioners

Vs.

Gulab Eknath Thorat,
Age : 45 Years, Occ. Agri.,
r/o.Bori, Tq. Shrigonda,
Dist. Ahmednagar ..Respondent

----
Ms.M.V.Narwade, Advocate h/f. Mr.V.P.Narwade, Advocate for petitioners
Mr.Z.H.Farooqui, Advocate h/f. Mr.N.V.Gaware, Advocate for respondent
----

CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2026
ORDER :-

The petitioners/defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.148 of

2023 pending before learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Shrigonda is

carrying temporary injunction order against him. The respondent

instituted Civil Suit (supra) against the petitioners for specific

performance of contract for execution of of the sale deed of the subject

matter suit property. Claiming possession on the basis of the alleged

Agreement to Sell the plaintiffs sought interim protection under Order
2 8-Writ Petition No.2517 of 2024

XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

After hearing the parties the trial court recorded findings in negative

against the plaintiff. This resulted into rejection of the application for

temporary injunction.

2. The respondent/plaintiff then urged learned District

Judge-2, Shrigonda vide Misc. Civil Appeal No.34 of 2023 assailing

the findings of the trial court. After hearing the parties the District

Court took exception to the view expressed by the trial court that

resulted into imposition of temporary injunction against the

petitioners. This is vide the impugned order dated 19.01.2024

passed by the District Court.

3. Mrs.M.V.Narwade, learned advocate for the

petitioners/defendants would submit that the suit is not stayed and

the trial is in progress. She makes every endeavor to satisfy me that

the findings of the trial court were based on the documents which

clearly doubted the alleged story raised by the plaintiff. She

submits that the trial court rightly observed that the plaintiff could

not show prima facie case or the balance of convenience in his

favour. She further submits that there was no reason for the District

Court to interfere into those findings. She thus prays to allow the

Writ Petition and to set aside the injunction.
3 8-Writ Petition No.2517 of 2024

4. Mr.Z.H.Farooqui holding for Mr.N.V.Gaware, learned

advocate appearing for the respondent would support the impugned

judgment and order and pray for dismissal of this Writ Petition.

5. It is trite law that the object of temporary injunction is for

an immediate purpose. Since January, 2024 the injunction is in

operation against the petitioners. This Court has not stayed the

order passed by the District Court. The trial is in progress. In view of

this, in my considered view there is no need to disturb the order

passed by the District Court at this juncture. Instead it would be in

the interest of justice if the trial court is requested to conclude the

suit proceedings in a time frame manner.

6. In view of the above, I pass the following order:-

A) The Writ Petition stands dismissed.

B) The trial court is requested to conclude the suit
proceedings within eight months from today. The trial court shall
render its findings in the suit strictly on the basis of the evidence
tendered by the parties during the trial and without being influenced
by any observations made by itself or the District Court in the
temporary injunction proceedings.

[AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.]
………..
KBP

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…