SANJAY TUKARAM LOKHANDE AND OTHERSversusBAPU KISAN LOKHANDE AND OTHERS

                                                                   116.WP.7864.2019



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 7864 OF 2019

Sanjay Tukaram Lokhande and Others                    ...Petitioners
      Versus
Bapu Kisan Lokhande and Others                        ...Respondents
                                   ***
Mr. Vikram R. Dhorde, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. A. A. Joshi h/f Mr. Sharad V. Natu, Advocate for the Respondents.
                                   ***
                                 CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                 DATE : APRIL 02, 2026
PER COURT :

1.                 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.                 The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26 th April

2018 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-6, Ahmednagar in

Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2018, thereby confirming the

order dated 06th December 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge,

Senior Division, Shrigonda below Exhibit 164 in Regular Civil Suit No.

160 of 2007, whereby application for temporary injunction filed by the

respondents/original defendants came to be allowed.

3.                 Mr. Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits

that petitioner No. 1 has purchased the western portion of the suit

property for valuable consideration admeasuring 3 H 49 R from the

heirs of Sakharam Bholu Shinde, whose name appeared in the


Shrikant Malani                                                         Page 1 of 4
                                                                   116.WP.7864.2019



consolidation proceedings as well as in the record of rights and is in

possession thereof. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also

purchased the eastern half portion admeasuring 3 H 49 R, which stood

in the name of Shaila Goraksha Lokhande and Pravin Lokhande, and

thus are in possession of the total land admeasuring 6 H 9 R from Gut

No. 723.

4.                It is submitted that as the heirs of Kisan Maruti Lokhande

obstructed the peaceful possession of the petitioners, the petitioners

filed Regular Civil Suit No. 160 of 2007 for perpetual injunction,

wherein an application for temporary injunction was also filed and

allowed in their favour.

5.                The learned counsel further submits that during the

pendency of the proceedings, revenue proceedings were initiated for

correction of consolidation scheme and setting aside mutation entry.

Proceedings went up to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5344 of

2012, this Court had granted status quo in respect of mutation entry

and stay to the directions regarding submission of draft proposal under

the Consolidation Act.

6.                It is further submitted that the respondents thereafter filed

an application below Exhibit 164 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of


Shrikant Malani                                                         Page 2 of 4
                                                               116.WP.7864.2019



the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that the petitioners had started

excavation for construction of a water storage tank and sought

restraint against such activities. The petitioners opposed the

application; however, the learned Trial Court allowed the same. The

Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.17 of 2018 preferred by the petitioners

also came to be dismissed, hence the present petition is filed.

7.                The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once

an injunction was already operating in favour of the petitioners, the

learned Trial Court ought not to have granted the relief in favour of

the respondents by allowing application below Exhibit 164. It is

contended that the petitioners, being owners of the suit property by

virtue of registered sale deeds, were entitled to use the property and

the Courts below erred in restraining them.

8.                Per contra, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel holding for by Mr.

Natu for the respondents, supports the impugned orders and submits

that the petitioners, taking undue advantage of the interim injunction,

attempted to change the nature of the suit property by undertaking

excavation. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly

granted injunction to maintain status quo, and the Appellate Court has

correctly confirmed the same.



Shrikant Malani                                                     Page 3 of 4
                                                                   116.WP.7864.2019



9.                I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned

counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. It appears

that the petitioners’ claim is based, inter alia, on Mutation Entry No.

11455, which has already been cancelled by the competent authority.

Though the petitioners rely upon registered sale deeds, the title of the

property is seriously disputed.

10.               It is further evident that an interim injunction was already

operating in favour of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the

petitioners were not justified in altering the nature of the suit property,

particularly when the dispute regarding title is yet to be adjudicated.

11.               In my view, the learned Trial Court has rightly exercised its

discretion in allowing the application below Exhibit 164 to preserve

the nature of the suit property, and the said order has been correctly

affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any

perversity or illegality in the impugned orders warranting interference

in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

12.               Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merits and is

dismissed. No order as to costs.

13.               All points are kept open.


                                         ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. )

Shrikant Malani                                                         Page 4 of 4