Bombay High Court

BHAUSAHEB BABURAO LABHADE AND ANOTHERversusPRAMILA JOHN JADHAV AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: SIDDHESHWAR SUNDARRAO THOMBRE

Holding

The Court directed the trial courts to decide the suits within one year and continued the interim order, without examining the merits.

Summary

The petitioners challenged orders rejecting their temporary injunction application and granting police aid to respondents, seeking a direction that the trial courts decide the pending suits within a fixed period while maintaining the status‑quo. The High Court noted that the parties had agreed that a one‑year deadline for the trial courts would serve justice and that the interim order should remain in force. Without examining the merits of the underlying suits, the Court directed the trial courts to decide both suits within one year and ordered the continuation of the interim relief. It clarified that no findings on the merits were made and that the petitions were disposed, leaving the substantive issues open for the trial courts. The decision was purely procedural, aimed at expediting the pending litigation.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court should direct the trial courts to decide the pending suits within a stipulated period.
Whether the interim order granting status‑quo relief should continue pending the trial courts' decisions.

Subjects

temporary injunction
status quo
interim relief
trial court direction
procedural order
petition disposal

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:763
                                               1 of 3                  1028-WP.9545.2023




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             1028 WRIT PETITION NO. 9545 OF 2023

                         BHAUSAHEB BABURAO LABHADE AND ANOTHER
                                            VERSUS
                              PRAMILA JOHN JADHAV AND OTHERS
                                                ...
               Mr. Ajinkya Kale h/f. M/s. Talekar & Associates, Advocate for the
               Petitioners.
               Mr. Vasant Digambarrao Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
                                                ...

                                            WITH
                                WRIT PETITION NO. 9547 OF 2023

                         BHAUSAHEB BABURAO LABHADE AND ANOTHER
                                            VERSUS
                              PRAMILA JOHN JADHAV AND OTHERS
                                                …
               Mr. Ajinkya Kale h/f. M/s. Talekar & Associates, Advocate for the
               Petitioners.
               Mr. Vasant Digambarrao Salunke, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
                                                ...

                                       CORAM :          SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
                                       DATE     :       8th JANUARY, 2026

               P.C.:-

               1.       Heard learned Advocates for the respective parties.

               2.       In Writ Petition No.9545 of 2023, the Petitioners are assailing

               the common order dated 12.01.2023 passed below Exhibit 5 and

               Exhibit 20 by learned C.J.S.D., Kopargaon in R.C.S. No.186 of 2021,

               whereby application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the

               Petitioners came to be rejected. The said order was confirmed by the
                                 2 of 3                1028-WP.9545.2023




order dated 10.07.2023 passed below Exhibit 40 by District Judge-1,

Kopargaon in M.C.A. No.10 of 2023.          Whereas, in Writ Petition

No.9547 of 2023, the Petitioners are assailing the common order dated

25.07.2023 passed below Exhibit 33 and Exhibit 42 by learned C.J.J.D.,

Kopargaon in R.C.S. No.186 of 2021, whereby police aid was granted

to Respondent Nos.1 to 5.


3.        At the outset, both the learned Advocates submitted that this

Court, by its order dated 03.08.2023, directed the parties to maintain

status quo. It is further submitted that the suits are of the years 2021

and 2022, namely R.C.S. No.186 of 2021 and R.C.S. No.177 of 2022.

Both the learned Advocates submitted that the ends of justice would be

met if the Trial Court is directed to decide both the suits within a

stipulated period, while continuing the order passed by this Court.


4.        In view thereof, without going into the merits of the matter, I

am inclined to dispose of the present petitions by directing the Trial

Court to decide both the suits within a period of one year from today.

The Trial Court shall decide the suits on their own merits and in

accordance with law.


5.        The interim order granted by this Court shall continue to

operate till the Trial Court decides the suits. The interim relief is

continued only because it was in operation during the pendency of the
                                          3 of 3                1028-WP.9545.2023




          proceedings.


          6.       It is made clear that this Court has not recorded any findings

          nor examined the merits of the matter.


          7.       Therefore, the present petitions are disposed of.


          8.       All the issues are kept open.



                                            (SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.)

Tauseef

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…