Dismissed

Dilipkumar Raghunath Pandhare and Others. v. Saibai Bhimaji Kadam and 4 Others

Bombay HC11 Jun 2010CA/7046/1998

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil application for temporary injunction, the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad, held that the application stands rejected due to significant delay in pressing it. The court noted the appellant was not in possession of the land when the suit was filed.

What did the court decide?

Application for temporary injunction rejected; respondents directed not to create third party right or part with possession.

Dilipkumar Raghunath Pandhare and Others. Vs Saibai… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Civil Application No. 7046 of 1998 in Second Appeal No. 271 of 2005

¶4

Dilipkumar Raghunath Pandhare	Appellant
V E R S U S
Saibai Bhimaji Kadam (died), her	Respondents
L.Rs. and others

¶5

Mr. D.G.Deokate, Advocate holding for Mrs. C.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the applicant Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate for respondents No. 2, 4 and 5

¶6

CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 11th June, 2010

¶7

PER COURT :

¶8

The appellant now presses his application for temporary injunction, which he had filed long back in the year 1996 or so, when the appeal was presented to this Court. This is a second appeal. Both the Courts below held that the plaintiff / appellant was not in possession of the land on the date of filing of the suit though the suit is filed for injunction simplicitor. The Courts below held that the respondents / defendants were in possession of the suit land on the date of filing of the suit. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant pointed out that during the pendency of the suit as well as the first appeal till 1996 i. e. 1983 to 1996 an order of temporary injunction was in force against the respondents / defendants. He therefore contended that it would be appropriate to continue such relief in his client’s favour. I am afraid. For two reasons I am not inclined to accept this prayer. First is the fact that both the Courts below on facts held that the appellant was not in possession on the

¶9

¶10

date of filing of the suit. This prima facie shows that the appellant even today is not in possession of the suit land. The second and better reason is that even if the appeal was filed in the year 1996 or so, it is the fact that the appellant had an ample opportunity to press the application for temporary injunction but it was not pressed and it is pressed rather belatedly today. The delay in pressing the application is too much, and therefore, there is no force in the application. The application stands rejected.

¶11

Despite of this order, the respondents shall not create a third party right or shall not part with their possession to a third party during pendency of the appeal.

¶12

(A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)

¶13

srm/ca/7046/98

Dilipkumar Raghunath Pandhare and Others. v. Saibai Bhimaji Kadam and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilipkumar Raghunath Pandhare and Others. v. Saibai Bhimaji Kadam and 4 Others

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 New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Surayyabegum Syed Isaq and Ors.

Pandhari Kerba Wadjkar and Ors. Vs Bhusaheb Mukundrao Hakke and Ors.

Maruti M.Karad(Died)Lrs Shivabai M.Karad and Ors. Vs Dagadusaheb Santoba Satbhai Andanr

Maruti Pandurang Surnar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ananda Bhika Mali Vs Hansraj Kalu Mahale L.Rs.Kmalbai Hansraj Mahale

Dattatraya N Pande Vs State of Mah.