Dismissed

Baban Vaghu Marathe and Anr. v. Motiram Raoji Marathe and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Jul 2007WP/3027/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the vacation of an interim injunction restraining construction. The bench held that whether construction complied with permission is a question for the trial court and no stay is appropriate once work has commenced. The petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed and the interim injunction was not reinstated.

Baban Vaghu Marathe and Anr. Vs Motiram Raoji Marathe and… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

 WRIT PETITION NO.3027 OF 2007

¶4

 Baban Vaghu Marathe & Anr. .. Petitioners

¶5

 V/s.

¶6

 Motiram Raoji Marathe & Ors. .. Respondents

¶7

 Mr.S.M. Sakhardande with Mrs.S.S. Wagh for the
 petitioners.

¶8

CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR, J.

¶9

DATED : 11TH JULY, 2007.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

 1. This petition is filed to challenge the order
 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon
 Maval dated 26th August, 2005 in Regular Civil Suit
 No.62 of 2005 as also the order passed by the 9th
 Adhoc Additional District Judge, Pune dated 4th
 February, 2006 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.274 of 2005.

¶12

 2. In Regular Civil Suit No.62 of 2005,
 ad-interim injunction was passed on 11th April, 2005
 restraining the respondent No.1 from carrying out any
 further construction over the suit property. By the
 impugned order dated 26th August, 2005, the Civil
 Judge, Junior Division, Vadgaon Maval has vacated the
 interim injunction order dated 11th April, 2005
 interalia on the ground that the Municipal Council,

¶13

¶14

 Vadgaon Maval has approved the construction work over
 the suit property and the said order has been upheld
 by the 9th Adhoc Additional District Judge, Pune.

¶15

 3. According to the petitioner, the permission
 granted by the Municipal Council was for repairs
 whereas the respondent No.1 has demolished the
 existing structure and put up new construction.

¶16

 4. Whether the construction work carried on by
 the respondent in is accordance with the permission
 or not is a question that can be gone into at the
 trial. Moreover, if the construction has already
 been carried out, there is no question of granting
 stay at this stage.

¶17

 5. In this view of the matter, I do not find any
 infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the
 petition is dismissed.

¶18

 6. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
 The petitioners are at liberty to apply to the Trial
 Court for expeditious disposal of the Suit.

¶19

 (J.P. DEVADHAR, J.)

Baban Vaghu Marathe and Anr. v. Motiram Raoji Marathe and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baban Vaghu Marathe and Anr. v. Motiram Raoji Marathe 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

M/S. Aakar Ceramica Print Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs Rupee Co-Op. Bank Ltd.

Vasant Balkrishna Satoskar Vs Mahim United Industrial Premises Co-Operative Society Ltd. and Anr.

Delferruz Darius Dorabjee Vs Darius Marzban Dorabjee

Niwas Spinning Mills Ltd. Vs Sanjay M.Munot and Ors.

Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Private Limited Vs Maharashtra State Textile Corporation Limited

Ulhas Namdeo Kodre Vs Shivaji Genba Kodre and Ors.