Bombay High Court

PANDHARINATH ANIL MATE AND AN0THERversusHARJABAI DASHRATH WAGHMARE AND ANOTHER

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SACHIN S DESHMUKH

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed, and the injunction order against the petitioners is upheld.

Summary

The petitioners, Pandharinath and Bebitai, challenged an order dated 23.07.2014 of the District Judge which partially allowed a miscellaneous appeal filed by the plaintiff, Harjabai, granting an injunction against them in a land dispute concerning Survey No. 67/2 (21 acres). The plaintiff had filed a regular civil suit seeking declaration and injunction, claiming possession based on a registered sale deed dated 11.11.2013, while the petitioners argued ancestral rights and permission to cultivate the land. The trial court had rejected an interlocutory injunction, but the appellate court granted it on the basis of the plaintiff’s possession, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable loss. The High Court, after reviewing the material, held that the discretion exercised by the lower courts was not perverse and upheld the injunction. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

The appropriateness of granting an injunction against the petitioners in the land dispute
Whether the lower courts exercised discretion correctly in light of the plaintiff’s possession and balance of convenience
Whether the writ petition challenging the appellate order merits consideration

Subjects

land dispute
injunction
possession
balance of convenience
interlocutory injunction
civil suit
declaration
survey
writ petition

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:31333



                                                                         54 WP9024.2014
                                             -1-

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             WRIT PETITION NO. 9024 OF 2014

              1. PANDHARINATH ANIL MATE
              2. BEBITAI ASHOK MATE                                      .. Petitioners
                                                           (Original Defendants No.1 & 2)

                         VERSUS

              1. HARJABAI DASHRATH WAGHMARE
              2. AGASTI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD.
                                                                       .. Respondents
                                         (Respondent No.1 is Orig. Plaintiff & Respondent
                                         No.2 is Orig. Defendant No.3)
                                               ...
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sudarshan J Salunke
              Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S S Kotkar
                                               ...

                                         CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                           Date : 27.07.2026

              PER COURT :-
              1.         The Petition raises challenge to the order dated

              23.07.2014, rendered by the District and Additional Sessions

              Judge, Newasa in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.118 of 2014.


              2.         Petitioners herein are Original Defendants No.1 and 2

              and Respondent No.1 is Original Plaintiff and Respondent No.2 is

              Original Defendant No.3.


              3.         Regular Civil Suit is presented by the respondent /
                                                            54 WP9024.2014
                                   -2-

plaintiff for declaration and injunction in relation to Survey

No.67/2 admeasuring 21 Are. The suit was contested by the

defendants     /   present    Petitioners     by     presenting   Written

Statement.     Even,     Plaintiff’s     requested    for   interlocutory

injunction, which was rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved by the

same, the Plaintiff approached to the learned District Judge by

presenting the miscellaneous appeal, which is partly allowed by

order dated 23.07.2014. Assailing the said order, the Defendants

are before this court.


4.           Mr. Sudarshan J Salunke, learned counsel for the

Petitioners submits that the land belongs to the forefather of the

Petitioners and the permission in that regard to cultivate the land

as and when the water level in the Dam recedes is granted in

their favour. As such the trial court was justified in not exercising

the discretion in favour of the plaintiff.


5.           Per contra, Mr. S S Kotkar, learned counsel for

Respondent No.1 supports the order.


6.           Upon considering the rival submissions and perusal of

the material on record, the registered sale deed on record dated

11.11.2013, in relation to subject suit land by which the plaintiff
                                                        54 WP9024.2014
                                 -3-

is put in possession is undisputed. The trial court although has

considered the fact of possession of the Plaintiff, however, has

declined to exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff primarily

on the ground of the authorization issued in favour of Bhaskarrao

Pathare.


7.          Appreciating the said aspect in proper perspective,

the first appellate court has allowed the application presented by

the plaintiff, while exercising discretion based on the material on

record such as the registered Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff

and the fact that the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property.


8.          Resultantly, the injunction order is granted against

the present Petitioners. The exercise of discretion is based on the

material to that effect and on settled principles governing grant of

injunction. Such as, prima facie, proved possession vis-a-vis

balance of convenience and irreparable loss. As such, the same

cannot be regarded as perverse.


9.          Accordingly, the Writ Petition does not warrant

consideration and the same is dismissed.



                                        (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)
marathe

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…