This petition challenged an order restraining the petitioner from constructing or altering the suit property pending suit disposal. The Single Judge held that reasons for the restraint were not perverse and rejected the writ petition.
Writ petition stands rejected.
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.
wp5051.12
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
_____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
WRIT PETITION NO.5051 OF 2012
Vijay Govind Kamble vs Pandit Marotrao Kshirsagar and ors.
Adv. for petitioners: Mr.Bedre V.S.
... CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J. Dated: April 12, 2013 ...
Heard learned Counsel or the petitioner. This petition takes exception to the order dated 12th September, 2011 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-1, Aurangabad in Misc. Civil Appeal No.74 of 2010. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has been restrained from making any sort of construction or change or create any third party interest over the suit property. The said order has been confirmed by the appellate authority. He submits that said order passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the lower
wp5051.12
2
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
_____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
appellate Court is without any convincing
reasons. He invited my attention to the grounds taken in the petition. He submits that in pursuance to the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is in possession of the suit property and enjoying the suit property. Therefore, such restraint on the petitioner was unwarranted.
2 I have given anxious consideration to the
submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Upon careful perusal of the reasons recorded by the trial Court, it appears that there are three sale deeds executed in respect of suit property and the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is later in time. Considering the said aspect, till disposal of the suit, the trial Court
wp5051.12
3
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
_____________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
has passed the order restraining the petitioner from making any sort of construction or change or create any third party interest in the suit property. The said order has been confirmed by the appellate Court. In my opinion, the reasons recorded by the courts below are not perverse. NO case is made out for interference. Writ petition stands rejected.
(S.S. SHINDE, J.)
PLK/*
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the orders of the trial and appellate courts restraining the petitioner from constructing or creating third party interests in the suit property pending di
Vijay Govind Kamble
Pandit Marotrao Kshirsagar
S.S. SHINDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
