Bombay High Court
MADHUKAR UDDHAV BHAGWAT AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- S G CHAPALGAONKAR
Holding
The High Court held that the petitioners must be allowed to add the Tahsildar as a party and the lower courts' orders rejecting the injunction for non‑joinder were set aside.
Summary
The petitioners, Madhukar Uddhav Bhagwat and others, filed R.C.S. No.249 of 2024 seeking a declaration and a temporary injunction against the State of Maharashtra (through the Tahsildar) and private respondents. They submitted an application (Exhibit‑5) for a temporary injunction but failed to join the Tahsildar as a party. Both the Trial Court and the District Judge dismissed the injunction on the ground of non‑joinder of a necessary party. The petitioners challenged those orders by filing a writ petition before the High Court. The High Court held that the earlier orders were erroneous, quashed them, and directed that the petitioners be given two weeks to amend the application by adding the Tahsildar as a respondent, with the matter remitted to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. The writ petition was thereafter disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court could lawfully reject the application for temporary injunction on the ground of non‑joinder of the Tahsildar, a necessary party
- Whether the writ petition can be entertained to permit amendment of the injunction application and set aside the lower courts' orders
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code — s. 143
Subjects
- temporary injunction
- joinder of necessary party
- Maharashtra Land Revenue Code
- section 143
- writ petition
- civil procedure amendment
- jurisdiction
- high court order
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:13800
1 wp 7446.25.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
939 WRIT PETITION NO.7446 OF 2025
Madhukar Uddhav Bhagwat And Others
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. K.R. Doke
AGP for Respondents: Mr. S.N. Kendre
Advocate for Respondent 2 : Mr. S. S. Gangakhedkar
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Dated : March 27, 2026
ORDER :-
1. Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated
7.5.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Bhoom in Misc.
Civil Appeal no.7 of 2025, thereby upholding the judgment and
order dated 7.4.2025 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge
S.D., Bhoom, by which petitioners application for grant of
temporary injunction pending hearing and final disposal of the
R.C.S. No.249 of 2024 came to be rejected.
2. Petitioners suffered order under section 143 of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Aggrieved by the said
decision, petitioners filed R.C.S. No.249 of 2024 before the
Civil Judge S.D. at Bhoom seeking relief of declaration and
injunction against State of Maharashtra (through the
2 wp 7446.25.odt
Tahsildar) and private respondents in whose favour the order
under section 143 of the Code was passed. Petitioners filed an
application below Exhibit-5 in the suit seeking temporary
injunction against the respondents. However, in his application
Exhibit-5, the State of Maharashtra (through the Tahsildar)
was not made party. The Trial Court as well as learned District
Judge concurrently observed that in absence of the Tahsildar
being party to application seeking temporary injunction, no
effective order can be passed. Eventually, petitioners suffered
disinclination from both the Courts to grant prayer of
temporary injunction.
3. Perusal of the plaint in R.C.S. No.249 of 2024 depicts
that petitioners added respondent no.1 State of Maharashtra
through the Tahsildar in pursuance to his prayers in the suit.
Unfortunately, he could not arraign the State of Maharashtra
through the Tahsildar, as party in his application under Exhibit
5. Both the Courts were justified in observing that since the
order, which is subjected to challenge in the suit, is passed by
the Tahsildar in exercise of the powers under section 143 of the
Code is not made party, no order granting temporary
injunction can be passed. In this backdrop, learned counsel
appearing for petitioners submits that petitioners may be
3 wp 7446.25.odt
permitted to add the Tahsildar as party to his application below
Exhibit 5 and prosecute his application for grant of temporary
injunction. This Court finds that since petitioners suffered
rejection of his application for non-joinder of necessary party,
he needs to be given an opportunity to add the Tahsildar,
Bhoom as party in the application and relegate the matter for
re-consideration to the Trial Court. Hence, following order.
ORDER
i. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside.
ii. The matter is relegated back to the Trial Court.
iii. The petitioners are permitted to add the
Tahsildar as party respondent in this application
Exhibit-5. Such an amendment to be carried out
within a period of two weeks from today.
iv. Learned Trial Court shall re-consider petitioners
application Exhibit-5 on its own merit and pass
the reasoned order after considering the rival
contentions.
v. Writ Petition stands disposed off. The Trial
Court shall endeavour to decide the application
Exhibit-5 expeditiously and, in any case, within
a period of (8) eight weeks from the date of this
order.
( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. )
…
AAA/-
Checking your session…