Disposed

Balwant @ Balkrishna Dattatraya Mane v. Anandrao Balkrishna Mane and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2005WP/2433/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition impugned an appellate order dismissing an injunction application. The High Court granted interim relief staying demolition, directed the key to remain with the petitioner, directed expeditious disposal of the underlying suit within one year, and noted the need for/from the trial court to decide uninfluenced by lower courts' observations.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to respondents not to demolish the suit premises, key to remain with petitioner pending suit outcome, and trial court to decide suit within one year.

Balwant @ Balkrishna Dattatraya Mane Vs Anandrao… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2433 OF 2004

¶4

Balwant @ Balkrishna Dattatraya Mane, Petitioner.
Vs
1. Anandrao Balkrishna Mane and ors.Respondents
Mr Amit Sale, for the petitioner.
Mr N.J.Patil, for respondent no.1.

¶5

CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE,J.

¶6

DATE : FEBRUARY 22, 2005.

¶7

P.C.

¶8

1.Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

2.In this writ petition, the petitioner has
impugned the order dated 6.2.2004 passed by the
Appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No.7/2002 by
which the appeal filed by the respondents-defendants
was allowed. The operative part of the impugned
order reads thus:

¶10

"1. The appeal is allowed with no order as
to the costs. The impugned judgment and
order dated 16.1.2002 passed by the III Jt
Civil Judge, Jr Dn.,Karad below application
for ad-interim injunction Exh.5 in Regular
Civil Suit no.363/2000, are hereby set aside.
The said application for injunction (Exh.5)
submitted by the plaintiff stands dismissed.

¶11

:2:

¶12

2. The Nazir of the Trial Court, in whose

¶13

custody the key of suit property is placed,
is directed to hand over the key to the
defendant no.1 or his Advocate on or after
5.3.2004.

¶14

3. A decree be prepared accordingly."

¶15

The appeal was directed against the judgment and
order dated 16.1.2002 by which the petitioner
-plaintiff’s application Exhibit-5 filed in Regular
Civil Suit No.363 of 2000 was allowed. The
petitioner had prayed for injunction restraining the
respondents-defendants from demolishing the shop
premises situate in C.S.No.1540 at Mouje Ogalewadi,
Taluka -Karad.

¶16

3.In this petition, while issuing notice, this
Court had granted interim order in terms of prayer
clause (b). Prayer (b) reads thus:

¶17

"Pending hearing and final disposal of this
writ petition, the judgment and order dated
6.2.2004 passed by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc
Addl.District Judge, Karad in Misc. Civil

¶18

:3:

¶19

Appeal No.363 of 2000 be stayed and further
by issuing an order of injunction against the
respondents, they be restrained from
demolishing the suit premises and/or damaging
to it any manner to the suit property."

¶20

4. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the

¶21

respondents, submits that before passing of the
interim order in terms of prayer clause (b), the
Nazir of the Court handed over the key of the suit
premises to respondent no.1. Mr.Sale, learned
counsel for the petitioner, does not dispute the
statement made by Mr Patil. In view of this, instead
of keeping the writ petition pending in this Court
any more, in my opinion, the following order will
meet the ends of justice.

¶22

(i) The respondents shall not demolish the suit
premises and/or damage it in any manner till the
disposal of the suit bearing Regular Civil Suit
No.363 of 2000.

¶23

(ii) The trial Court shall endeavour to decide the
suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within a period of one year from today. The
petitioner to produce a copy of this order before the

¶24

:4:

¶25

trial Court within four weeks from today.

¶26

(iii) It is needless to express that the trial Court
shall decide the suit uninfluenced by the
observations made by the courts below in the
proceedings arising out of Exhibit-5 application and
by the fact that the key of the suit property has
been handed over to the respondents-defendants. The
handing over of key in pursuance of the order dated
6.2.2004 shall be subject to outcome of the suit.

¶27

(iv) The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶28

(D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Balwant @ Balkrishna Dattatraya Mane v. Anandrao Balkrishna Mane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwant @ Balkrishna Dattatraya Mane v. Anandrao Balkrishna Mane and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manohar Balkrishna Shinde Vs Bhimrao Dharma Gade

Shashikant Shankar Kshirsagar and Ors. Vs Ramchandra Mahadeo Kshirsagar and Anr.

Suresh Eknath Kulkarni Vs Pandharinath Shankarrao Kulkarni

Vasantdada Patil Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Va Puravtha Vs Jai Malhar Dudh Utpadak Va Puravtha Sanstha and Ors.

Sidheshwar Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hanuman Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Vs Shri Shivajirao Shenge and Ors.