Bombay High Court

ANURADHA KAKASAHEB TUPE AND OTHERSversusJANARDHAN RANGNATH TUPE AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The High Court disposed of the writ petition, refusing to grant a temporary injunction, as the lower courts had already considered and rejected the relief on the established parameters.

Summary

The petitioners filed Civil Suit No.164 of 2021 seeking a temporary injunction under Order XXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC. The trial court rejected the injunction application, and the district court dismissed the subsequent appeal. Dissatisfied, the petitioners filed a writ petition in the High Court. The High Court observed that the lower courts had already examined the three criteria for injunction – prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss – and found no ground to grant relief. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of without granting an injunction, and the trial court was directed to conclude the suit within one year.

Issues considered

Whether a temporary injunction should be granted under Order XXIX Rule 1 & 2 of the CPC in the present circumstances
Whether the writ petition can be entertained for injunction after the trial and appellate courts have rejected the relief

Legislation cited

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

Subjects

temporary injunction
Order XXIX
Civil Procedure Code
Writ petition
High Court
balance of convenience
irreparable loss

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:40062



                                                       1
                                                                       38-wp-3580-2024

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 3580 OF 2024

                                 Anuradha Kakasaheb Tupe And Others
                                               VERSUS
                                 Janardhan Rangnath Tupe And Others
                                                  ...
                     Mr. P. N. Sonpethkar, Advocate for the Petitioners
                                                 …..
                                         CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         Considering the short issue in the matter and the relief

                     sought in the petition, the petition is disposed of at admission

                     stage.

                     2.        Regular Civil Suit No.164 of 2021 is filed by the

                     petitioners against the respondents in the Court of learned

                     Civil Judge Junior Division, Vaijapur. In the suit, an

                     application below Exhibit 5 under Order XXIX Rule 1 and 2

                     read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code came to be

                     filed by the petitioners against the respondents. After hearing

                     both the parties, vide the order dated 10.07.2023, the Trial

                     Court pleased to reject the said application.
                                2
                                                  38-wp-3580-2024

3.    Feeling dissatisfied thereby, the petitioners approached

District Court vide Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.32 of 2023.

After hearing both the sides, the said appeal came to be

turned down vide order dated 05.02.2024. As against that

order, the plaintiffs/petitioners are before this Court.

4.    The petitioners were not granted the relief of temporary

injunction by the Trial Court as also by the District Court.

Since the Writ Petition was filed in the year 2024, the purpose

of granting temporary injunction under Order XXIX Rule 1

and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code is very specific and to

provide immediate and limited protection to a party who

establishes prima facie case, balance of convenience and

irreparable loss.

5.    Both the Courts have decided the case of the petitioners

on   the   aforesaid   three   parameters,    and    upon   such

consideration, the application as well as the appeal came to be

dismissed. Obviously, the pendency of the Writ Petition itself

show that, at this juncture no such relief can be granted. It

does not mean that the petitioners can not establish their case

on merits before the Trial Court. In view of this, I pass

following order:
                                    3
                                                     38-wp-3580-2024

                                 ORDER

        a.       The Writ Petition stands disposed of.

        b.       The Trial Court is requested to conclude the
        suit proceedings within a period of one year.

        c.       It is clarified that the observations rendered
        by the Trial Court and the District Court were to
        the extent of grant of temporary injunction and
        only on the basis of the record that was placed
        before them for such relief.



                                        ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…