Bombay High Court
MUNJABHAU BHAGWANRAO THITEversusBHAGWANRAO RAMCHANDRA THITE AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The High Court upheld the temporary injunction and dismissed the writ petition, finding no reason to interfere with the lower courts' orders.
Summary
The petitioner, Munjabhau Bhagwanrao Thite, challenged a temporary injunction granted by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jintur, Parbhani, which was affirmed by the District Judge in a civil appeal. The petition, filed in 2017, sought to set aside the injunction order dated 22 April 2016. The High Court examined the orders and the concurrent findings of both the trial and appellate courts. Finding no merit to interfere with the lower courts' decisions, the Court dismissed the writ petition without awarding costs. The order of dismissal upheld the temporary injunction and the appellate court’s confirmation.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate jurisdiction and scope for a High Court to interfere with a temporary injunction order affirmed by lower courts?
Subjects
- temporary injunction
- writ petition
- civil procedure
- appellate jurisdiction
- injunction order
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:4659
Dilwale 1 41-WP-6800-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
41 WRIT PETITION NO. 6800 OF 2017
Munjabhau Bhagwanrao Thite
VERSUS
Bhagwanrao Ramchandra Thite And Others
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Ade Ravindra B. & Adv V P Raje
Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. Pratap P. Mandlik h/f Mr. Amol
Gandhi.
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 02.02.2026
PER COURT :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.
2. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated
22.04.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jintur,
District Parbhani below Exhibit-5 in RCS No.44/2016, which has been
confirmed by order dated 09.11.2016 passed by District Judge-3,
Parbhani in Misc. Civil Appeal No.20/2016.
3. The Trial Court granted temporary injunction, which has been
confirmed by the Appellate Court. The petition is pending since the year
2017. After perusing the orders passed by both the Courts below and in
view of concurrent findings recorded by both the Court below, I do not
find any reason to interfere with the orders under challenge.
4. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J ]
Checking your session…