Dismissed

The Grampanchayat, Manori Thr Gramsevak and Anr. v. Rupesh Ramesh Tanpure and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Aug 2012WP/4121/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a writ petition challenging an order staying a fresh suit for injunction. The matter largely involved the same subject matter as a previous suit. The trial court stayed the suit a.W.P. was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition dismissed with no order as to costs. Leave to enforce the order that the trial court decide the stayable suit expeditiously.

The Grampanchayat, Manori Thr Gramsevak and Anr. Vs Rupesh… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 W.P. 4121.2012

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4121 OF 2012

¶5

The Gram Panchayat,Manori & Anr. V/s Rupesh Ramesh Tanpure & Ors.

¶6

Office Notes,Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram,appearances, ................................ Court's orders or CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. directions and Registrar's orders DATE : 23/08/2012.

¶7

Mr. H.U.Dhage, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Sachin J.Salgare, Advocate holding for Mr. Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 & 2.

¶8

PER COURT :

¶9

The Respondent no. 1 has filed Suit bearing R.C.S. No. 426 of 2008 for injunction in respect of the property admeasuring 1 H. 97 R. of G.No. 152/3. Thereafter the present petitioners have also filed Suit bearing R.C.S. No. 325 of 2009 for injunction in respect of 1 R. land where the well is situated. The same is also part of G.No. 152/3. The parties in both the

¶10

2 W.P. 4121.2012

¶11

Suits are same. The subject matter of the present Suit appears to be the same subject matter of earlier Suit.

¶12

The trial Court has stayed R.C.S. No. 325 of 2009. Aggrieved thereby the present Writ Petition is filed.

¶13

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in fact the present respondents are not concerned with the suit property of R.C.S. No. 325 of 2009. The respondents are illegally claiming the same.

¶14

The learned counsel for the respondents supports the Order.

¶15

The earlier Suit filed by the present respondents is in respect of the land admeasuring 1 H. 97 R. The present petitioners are claiming 1 R. land which is part and parcel of the earlier Suit.

¶16

In view of the above, no error has been committed by the Court while passing the impugned order.

¶17

The Writ Petition as such is dismissed, however with no order as to costs.

¶18

3 W.P. 4121.2012 8. The Court where R.C.S. No. 426 of 2008 is pending shall decide the said Suit expeditiously as the Issues are framed. The parties shall co-operate in deciding the Suit.

¶19

[ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ]

¶20

KNP/W.P. 4121.2012

The Grampanchayat, Manori Thr Gramsevak and Anr. v. Rupesh Ramesh Tanpure and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Grampanchayat, Manori Thr Gramsevak and Anr. v. Rupesh Ramesh Tanpure 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

Managing Director Ashok Sahakari Ksakhar Karkhana Ashoknagar Dist a.Nagar Vs Mandabai Popat Changhate and Anr.

Namdeo Sadu Dige and Anr. Vs Kakasaheb Sadu Dige and Anr.

Bharat Petroleun Corporation Ltd. and Anr. Vs Samta Nagri Sah. Patsanstha Maryadit, Kopargaon and Ors.

Nawab Behbood Ali Khan Mumtaz Ali Khan and Ors. Vs Manojkumar Sureshchandra Bakliwal

Annapurna @ Dharmabia W/O Chintarajaiah (Died) Lrs Harishankar Pandharinath Mukkawar and Anr. Vs Papya Chintarajeshwar and Ors.

Arun Abraham Hirve Vs the Div Controller, Msrtc, Jalgaon.