Dismissed

Shri. Shantaram Shivram Mate and Ors. v. Nitin Tanaji Mate and Ors.

Bombay HC29 Oct 2012WP/7811/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an injunction application under Section 9A of the CPC. The Court held that since the maintainability of the suit was a preliminary issue pending adjudication, no case for interdiction was made out, and the writ petition failed.

What did the court decide?

Directs Trial Court to decide the application filed under Section 9(A) expeditiously.

Shri. Shantaram Shivram Mate and Ors. Vs Nitin Tanaji Mate… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

7811.12.WP

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7811 OF 2012

¶5

Shri Shantaram S. Mate and Ors

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

Vs.

¶8

Nitin Tanajji Mate and Ors

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr. Sandeep D. Paigude, for the Petitioners.

¶11

CORAM :- R. M. SAVANT , J. DATE :- OCTOBER 29, 2012.

¶12

P. C.:

¶13

1 The Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is invoked against the order dated 14.02.2012 passed by the learned 4^th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, by which order, the application filed by the Petitioners who are the original Plaintiffs for injunction by having recourse to Section 9A (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was rejected.

¶14

2 The Suit in question has been filed by the Plaintiffs for partition.

¶15

In the said Suit, the Defendants have raised an issue as regards the maintainability of the Suit on the ground that earlier an oral partition Aswale 1/3

¶16

has taken place between the family members. The issue of limitation has accordingly been framed under Section 9(A) of the CPC. It is pending adjudication of the said issue that the Plaintiffs filed the instant application for injunction. The Trial Court relying on the Mutation Entry No. 691 which has been certified in the year 1976, which according to it, prima facie disclosed the partition between the brothers and also considering the fact that the Plaintiffs have not taken objection to the Defendants exclusively dealing with the property being Survey No.33/1 for years together as also considering the fact that earlier the Suit filed by the Plaintiffs has been dismissed, has rejected the said application. The learned counsel for the Petitioners would seek to question the reliance placed by the Trial Court on the Mutation Entry No. 691 as according to the learned counsel the said Mutation Entry had been fraudulently effected.

¶17

3 It is required to be noted that the parties are at the stage of adjudication of the preliminary issue. The question whether the said Mutation Entry was effected fraudulently or not can be adjudicated after a full fledged trial. It is required to be noted that the Plaintiffs had also not taken recourse to the remedies available under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code,1966. In the light of the aforesaid conspectus of

¶18

Aswale 2/3

¶19

7811.12.WP

¶20

facts, the order passed by the Trial Court rejecting the application for injunction pending the application filed under Section 9(A) cannot be taken exception to. No case for interdiction is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The Trial Court is directed to decide the application filed under Section 9(A) expeditiously.

¶21

Aswale 3/3

Shri. Shantaram Shivram Mate and Ors. v. Nitin Tanaji Mate and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Shantaram Shivram Mate and Ors. v. Nitin Tanaji Mate and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Hajiyani Naseem Mohammed Abdul Raoof Memon Vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Twinkle Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Neelesh Kanade Group.

Neelesh Kanade Group, through Proprietor, Shri. Neelesh Satish Kanade Vs M/S. Twinkle Realtors Pvt. Ltd, through Shri. Sacchidanand a. Sahasrabuddhe

Anthony Jerome D'Souza Vs the Chief Executive Officer, Slum Rehabilitation Authority and Ors.

Sou. Sunita Kalyanrao Chavan Vs Pandurang Shivaji Mane

Vijay Kisan Avhad Vs Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika