Petitioner challenged concurrent orders granting temporary injunction and dismissing appeal in property suit. Court found no reason to interfere. Writ dismissed.
Writ petition dismissed. Suit to be decided expeditiously within nine 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
W.P.No.934/14
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.934 OF 2014
Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr.Pradeep Deshmukh, advocate holding for Ms. Kulthe
Sudha S., advocate for the Petitioner.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.
Date : 30.01.2014.
PER COURT :
2
W.P.No.934/14
Court has failed to consider the said aspect in its correct perspective. The Court has not properly appreciated the sale deeds on record which would throw light upon the ownership and possession of the petitioner.
court shall endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously and preferably within nine (9) months.
(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
Dt.30.01.2014. asp/office/wp934.14
3
W.P.No.934/14
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the concurrent orders of the Courts below granting injunction and dismissing appeal require interference under Article 227.
Whether the petitioner's lack of name mutation in revenue records bars him from continuing possession of his owned property against an injunction suit.
Whether the lower courts drew the correct conclusion regarding the plaintiff not being an adjacent land holder.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Farad / Petitioner
Plaintiff / Defendant
S.V.GANGAPURWALA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court