This writ petition challenged an order granting a temporary injunction against petitioners in a specific performance suit. The High Court, exercising its supervisory jurisdiction, refused interference, dismissing the petition.
Dismissal of the writ petition challenging the temporary injunction order.
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.
907-wp-6213-12
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6213 OF 2012
Ramesh Rama Patil & Ors. ....Petitioners. Versus Shri Vitthal Shankar Shelar & Ors. ...Respondents.
Ms Anita Bhaktwani, advocate for the Petitioners. Ms Gauri Godse, advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4.
CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : December 13, 2012.
P.C.:
Petitioners are original defendants in Special Civil Suit No.158 of 2007 filed by respondents (original plaintiffs) for declaration and specific performance of an agreement dated 4th February, 1978. Respondents during the pendency of the suit filed an application at Ex.5 restraining petitioners temporarily from interfering with their possession in the suit property and from creating third party interest in the suit property. Trial Court rejected this application. Respondents thereafter
Shivgan
907-wp-6213-12
2
preferred an appeal and the lower appellate Court reverted the trial Court’s order at Ex.5 and allowed the same thereby granting temporary injunction as aforesaid against the petitioners.
2 Lower appellate Court found that the agreement of sale in favour of the respondents is registered one. Recital of the possession is there in said agreement to sale in favour of the respondents. Lower appellate Court relied upon crop inspection proceedings and the panchanama conducted by the revenue authorities dated 28.11.2007 and 14.9.2009 respectively and prima-facie concluded that respondents are in possession of the suit property as on 28th November, 2007.
3 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners have sold out this property to the purchasers, who are third persons subsequently impleaded in the suit at the instance of the respondents. If that be so, petitioners have no interest in the suit property. Counsel for the petitioners also does not point out anything to show petitioners’ possession in the suit land on the date of suit.
Shivgan
907-wp-6213-12
3
4 Taking totality of the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(RANJIT MORE, J.)
Shivgan
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower appellate Court's order granting temporary injunction in a suit for specific performance under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the petitioners have any interest in the suit property given the sale to third persons.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Rama Patil & Ors.
Shri Vitthal Shankar Shelar & Ors.
Ranjit More
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
