Allowed

Laxman Kisan Markad v. Ramesh Raosaheb Markad and Others

Bombay HC29 Oct 2014WP/2812/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order dismissing an appeal against a temporary injunction, this court quashed the lower appellate order that deferred the appeal's decision due to pending writ proceedings. The court held it was expected for the lower court to decide the appeal independently or defer it, rather than resting the fate on a separate writ, and remanded the matter.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 12.11.2013 quashed and set aside. Misc. Civil Appeal No.137 of 2011 remanded to Ad hoc District Judge-2 for independent decision.

Laxman Kisan Markad Vs Ramesh Raosaheb Markad… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

W.P. No.2812.14

¶2

(1)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2812 OF 2014

¶5

Laxman Kisan Markad, Age : 61 yrs. Occ. Agri. And Pensioner, r/o Madhi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Ramesh s/o Raosaheb Markad, Age : 35 years, Occu. Agri.,

¶8

Kaduchand s/o Rambhau Markad, Age : 58 yrs., Occu. Agri.,

¶9

Punja s/o Pandharinath Markad, Age 65 yrs., Occ. Agri.,

¶10

Harichandra Rambhau Markad, Age : 54 yrs., Occu. Agri.,

¶11

Shreedhar Raosaheb Markad, Age : 40 yrs., Occu. Agri.,

¶12

Manisha Harichand Markad, Age : 28 yrs., Occu. Agri.,

¶13

Vimal Kaduchand Markad, Age : 40 yrs., Occu. Agri.,

¶14

Saraswati w/o Bhausaheb Markad, Age : 58 yrs, Occu. Agri.,

¶15

Janabai w/o Sambhaji Markad, Age : 40 yrs., Occu. Agri.,

¶16

Bhausaheb Kanhu Markad, Age : 63 yrs., Occu. Agri.,

¶17

Sambhaji Kanhu Markad, Age : 61 yrs., Occu. Agri.,

¶18

	(2) W.P. No.2812.14
12.	Chandrakala w/o Ramesh Markad, Age 32 yrs., Occu. Agri., (Deleted as per order dated 21.7.2014)
13.	Sharda w/o Shridhar Markad, Age : 36 yrs., Occu. Agri.
	All R/o Madhi, Tq. Pathardi, Dist. Ahmednagar ..PETITIONERS

¶19

Mr D.R. Markad, Advocate for petitioner; Mr P.R. Nangare, Advocate for respondents No.1, 4 to 11 & 13

¶20

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

¶21

DATE : 29th October, 2014

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The petitioner herein is a defendant in Regular Civil Suit No.240 of 2010 filed by respondents herein for simpliciter injunction. In the said suit, the respondents herein moved an application for grant of temporary injunction vide Exh.5, which came to be allowed on 15^th September, 2011 by Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Pathardi. By the said order of temporary injunction, the petitioner herein is restrained from creating new road through Gat No.401 and from obstructing the peaceful possession of respondents no.1 & 2 herein.

¶24

(3)

¶25

W.P. No.2812.14

¶26

The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by the order of temporary injunction dated 15^th September, 2011, preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No.137 of 2011. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Court of Ad hoc District Judge-2, Ahmednagar on 12^th November, 2013. As such present petition.

¶27

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, while inviting my attention to the order passed by the Lower Appellate Court on 12^th November, 2013, has submitted that the appeal challenging the order of grant of injunction was rejected on the ground that Writ Petition No.7432 of 2013 is pending, wherein this Court has directed maintenance of status quo. According to him, the said writ petition is arising out of the orders passed by the Mamlatdar, which was confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer granting right of way. He further submits that the proceedings before the Mamlatdar and the Sub-Divisional Officer are independent and are subject to the civil jurisdiction. He submits that it was expected of the Lower Appellate Court to decide his appeal on merit.

¶28

Having considered rival contentions of the parties, it is required to be noted that this Court, by an order passed today, has dismissed Writ Petition No.7432 of 2013, on the ground that no interference is called for in the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the Sub-Divisional Officer. This Court has already taken note of the pendency of the civil suit.

¶29

W.P. No.2812.14

¶30

It was expected of the learned Lower Appellate Court to deal with the appeal against the order of grant of injunction independently than to leave the parties subject to the outcome of the writ petition. It was also open for the Lower Appellate Court to defer the hearing of the appeal till the decision of the writ petition.

¶31

In my opinion, the impugned order dated 12^th November, 2013, passed by the Lower Appellate Court, in the wake of above referred observations, is not sustainable and is required to be quashed and set aside.

¶32

In the result, the order dated 12^th November, 2013, passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-2, Ahmednagar, is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court of Ad hoc District Judge-2, Ahmednagar with a direction to decide Misc. Civil Appeal No.137 of 2011, having regard to the observations made herein above.

¶33

Writ Petition stands allowed in above terms with no order as to

¶34

costs.

¶35

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶36

amj

Laxman Kisan Markad v. Ramesh Raosaheb Markad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Laxman Kisan Markad v. Ramesh Raosaheb Markad and Others

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

Sakharam Eknath Chavan and Another Vs Appasaheb Asaram Tandale and Others

Rahul Shantaram Sonwane Vs Ramesh Daulat Patil and Others

Bhiwa Shankar Sonawane Vs Hiraman Kisan Sonawane and Others

Gorakh Trading Corporation and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Ramesh Raosaheb Markad and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bakiram Bhagwat Lomte Vs Bharat @ Fulchand Sitaram Hajgude and Another