Writ petitioner challenged rejection of interim stay in a land possession dispute. The High Court refused to opine on merits, directed disposal of underlying revision within three months, and ordered maintenance of status quo pending outcome.
Maintenance of status quo directed; disposal of underlying revision ordered within three months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDIATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.7603 OF 2004
Sawala Krishna Pingale .. Petitioner.
Vs.
Arun Wamanrao Gundge .. Respondent.
Mr.K.B.Sohwalkar for the petitioner.
Mr.P.D.Gharge for the respondent.
CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J.
DATED : 12TH OCTOBER, 2004
P.C.:
. Mr.Sohwalkar, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr.Gharge, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. This petition is directed against the order
dated 5.8.2004 passed by the Additional
Commissioner, Pune by which the application filed
by the petitioner seeking interim stay of the order
impugned in the revision has been rejected. The
revision pending before the Additional
Commissioner, challenges the order dated 10.3.2004
passed by the Additional Collector in the appeal
filed by the petitioner. Mr.Sohwalkar, learned
counsel for the petitioner states that pending
2
hearing and final disposal of the revision if
interim stay is not granted the respondent is
likely to disturb the petitioner’s possession.
Mr.Gharge, learned counsel for the respondent, on
other hand states that the respondent is in
possession of the land in dispute. I would not
like to express any opinion on the merits of the
case. Keeping in view the submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties and considering the
overall facts and circumstances of the case, in my
opinion, an appropriate course would be to direct
the Commissioner, Pune to dispose of the revision
application filed by the petitioner within time
frame and in the meanwhile direct the parties to
maintain status quo. Hence I pass the following
order:
(a) The Additional Commissioner, Pune shall
decide revision, application filed by the
petitioner, against the order dated 13.3.2004
passed by the Additional Collector as expeditiously
as possible and preferrably within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of this
order.
(b) Until disposal of the revision, the parties
3
are directed to maintain status quo.
(c) The Additional Commissioner shall decide
the revision on merits in accordance with law.
(d) The petitioner to communicate this order to
the Commissioner within two weeks from today.
(e) All contentions are left open.
(f) Let me make it clear that while granting
the order of status quo I shall not be understood
to have examined merits of the case.
. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed
of.
(D.B.Bhosale, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an interim stay order is necessary to prevent disturbance of possession during pendency of revision.
Whether to direct the Additional Commissioner to dispose of the revision application within a specific time frame.
Sawala Krishna Pingale
Arun Wamanrao Gundge
D.B. Bhosale
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court