The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging orders rejecting an application for temporary injunction. Quashing the impugned orders, the Court granted a status quo and directed the trial Court to dispose of the suit within six months.
Impugned orders quashed; status quo granted; trial Court to dispose of suit within six 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
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.4255 OF 2012.
Bapurao S/o Bhaguji Agle,
Age 55 years, Occ.Cutting Saloon
Resident of adjacent Mammdevi
Shopping Center, Mastgad, Old
Jalna, Taluka and Dist.Jalna. ... Petitioner.
Versus
The Chief Officer,
Municipal Council,
Office of Municipal
Council, Jalna.
... Respondent.
Mrs.A.N.Ansari, advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr.H.K.Munde, advocate for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.
Date : 27.08.2012.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1.Heard.
2.Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
2
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.
3.The petitioner is the original
plaintiff who has filed suit for perpetual
injunction. Along with the suit the plaintiff
filed an application for temporary injunction.
The trial Court rejected the application. The
plaintiff filed appeal. The District Court
dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the
present petition.
4.Mrs.Ansari, learned counsel for the
petitioner submits that in fact, the petitioner
is in physical possession of the property. In
1988, the petitioner was allotted the plot/suit
shop. Even thereafter correspondence has been
made. The electricity connection and the shop
license is in the name of the petitioner.
5.Mr. Munde, learned counsel for the
Respondent supports the order and states that
both the Courts have concurrently rejected the
application. Some third person is in possession
3
of the property. The petitioner has no prima
facie case.
6.At the stage of determination of an
application for temporary injunction, the
relevant consideration would be actual physical
possession. Even trespasser in settled position
is entitled for injunction as is held by the Apex
Court in case of "Rame Gowda (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs.
M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by L.Rs.and another"
reported in (2004) 1 SCC 769.
7.There is nothing on record to show as
to when the Respondent has taken back possession.
The Court has observed that petitioner was
allotted the suit shop at rent of Rs.30/- p.m.
for a limited period. The Court has observed
that the plaintiff has no right to remain in
possession of the suit shop. The Respondents are
not in a position to show that the possession was
taken by the Respondents.
8.In view of the above, the impugned
orders are quashed and set aside. The parties
4
shall maintain statusquo in respect of the suit
property till the disposal of the suit. The
trial Court shall expeditiously dispose of the
suit, preferably within a period of six (6)
months from today.
9.Rule accordingly made absolute. No
costs.
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp4255.12
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned orders rejecting the temporary injunction application be quashed keeping in view the petitioner's possession.
Whether a status quo order be passed pending disposal of the underlying suit.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rame Gowda (Dead) by L.Rs. Vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by L.Rs.and anotherRelied on¶26
(2004) 1 SCC 769 · Who else cites this
Bapurao S/o Bhaguji Agle
The Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna
S.V.GANGAPURWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court