Bombay High Court
SADANAND SURESH PAWAR AND ANR.versusPANDURANG SAVKAR PAWAR AND ORS.
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that, given the pending appeal and the existing status‑quo order, an interim injunction should not be granted and the matter must be decided on its merits by the appellate court.
Summary
The petitioners, original plaintiffs in a suit for perpetual injunction over a 22.25‑are land, sought an interim injunction to restrain the respondents from constructing on the disputed plot. Their application (Exh 11) was rejected by the lower court, prompting this writ petition. The respondents argued that they had permission from the competent authority and highlighted inconsistencies in earlier statements regarding the land’s inclusion in the family settlement. The High Court noted that a status‑quo order was already in force since May 2026 and had been reaffirmed by the appellate court. It held that granting an interim injunction at this stage would be inappropriate and ordered the appellate court to decide the pending civil appeal on its merits within four months, while the status‑quo should continue. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with directions to maintain the status‑quo pending the appeal’s outcome.
Issues considered
- Whether an interim injunction should be granted pending the decision of Misc. Civil Appeal No. 51/2026.
- Whether the existing status‑quo order should be continued.
- Whether the respondents’ construction activities can be restrained pending the appeal.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act — s. 52, 53
Subjects
- interim injunction
- status quo
- civil appeal
- partition suit
- construction
- Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act
- perpetual injunction
- land dispute
Judgment
51 WP 4684 OF 2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
51 WRIT PETITION NO. 4684 OF 2026
SADANAND SURESH PAWAR AND ANR.
VERSUS
PANDURANG SAVKAR PAWAR AND ORS.
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Mahindra Deshmukh
Advocate for Respondents : Mr. Kuldeep Nikam
...
CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.
DATE : 22.09.2026
PER COURT :
Heard both sides.
2. The petition is directed against order dated 19.08.2026 passed below
Exh. 11 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 51/2026.
3. The petitioner is the original plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.
103/2026 filed for perpetual injunction against the respondents, who are
blood relatives. The respondents had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 15/2023
for partition and possession excluding the present subject matter i.e. land
R.S. No. 969/2 (new R.S. No. 579/2), measuring 22.25 Are. Application
Exh. 5 for temporary injunction was rejected on 09.07.2026. Being
aggrieved, Misc. Civil Appeal No. 51/2026 is preferred. Application Exh. 11
is preferred by the petitioner for interim injunction, which is rejected by the
impugned order.
4. It is not disputed that Misc. Appeal No. 51/2026 is awaiting
adjudication. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents are
carrying out construction over the suit land unauthorizedly. It is also
1/3
51 WP 4684 OF 2026.odt
pointed out that initially on 05.05.2026 order of status quo was granted. It
is contended that even the Municipal Council has taken steps by issuing
notices under Section 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning
Act. If the construction is continued that would cause prejudice to the
petitioner. Learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh has canvassed submissions on
above lines.
5. As against that Mr. Nikam appearing for the respondents has adverted
my attention to the first written statement filed in earlier suit to indicate the
plea taken by the petitioners regarding family arrangement and allotment of
the suit land to the respondents and other properties to the petitioners. A
subsequent written statement is also pointed out to show that inconsistent
stand has been taken and a plea is raised that suit land has not been
included in common hotchpot. It is also contended that construction
permission is solicited from the competent authority.
6. After considering the rival submissions of the parties, I find it
appropriate to direct the Appellate Court to decide Misc. Civil Appeal No.
51/2026 on its own merits, expeditiously. Exh. 11 was filed seeking interim
injunction pending Misc. Civil Appeal. The respondents are carrying out the
construction, which can be subjected to outcome of the orders of the interim
injunction or the suit. It would not be appropriate at this stage of the
proceeding to direct the respondents to remove the construction. Their
claim for having permission from the competent authority to construct the
premises needs to be decided during the course of trial. The purport of the
mutation entry No. 14186 also needs to be gone into during the trial.
7. It reveals from record that the Trial Court had granted status quo on
05.05.2026, which was continued vide order dated 09.07.2026, passed
below Exh. 48. While rejecting application Exh. 5, the status quo was in
operation. It was continued by the Appellate Court also vide order dated
14.08.2026. After rejection of application Exh. 11, the parties were directed
2/3
51 WP 4684 OF 2026.odt
to maintain status quo till appeal period is over vide order dated
20.08.2026. It would be appropriate to continue the order of status quo.
8. For the reasons stated above, I pass following order :
ORDER
(I) The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to
the Appellate Court -District Judge 1 Vita District Sangali to
decide Misc. Civil Appeal No. 51/2026 within a period of
four months from today, on its own merits, without being
influenced by orders of status-quo.
(II) Parties shall maintain status quo till the decision
of the Misc. Civil Appeal No. 51/2026 pending before the
Appellate Court.
( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.)
mkd/-
3/3
Checking your session…