The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact regarding boundaries, directing the petitioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court instead.
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.
wp-185.13
1
pmw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.185 OF 2013 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.530 OF 2015
Ramchandra Kanu Mendadkar … Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents
Mr. Chintamani K. Bhangoji for the Petitioner.
Mr. Anurag Gokhale, AGP for the Respondent No.1 – State. Mrs. Geeta Shastri for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4 – BMC.
CORAM : A.S. OKA & C.V. BHADANG, JJ.
DATE : 16th FEBRUARY, 2016
P.C.
. Perused the affidavits filed on record. After having perused all the affidavits on record, we find that this Petition involves disputed questions of fact including the disputed questions as regards the boundaries. We are, therefore, of the view that the controversy can be more appropriately resolved by a Civil Court. Accordingly, we decline to entertain this Petition and the same is disposed of. However, it is open for the Petitioner to adopt appropriate remedy in accordance with law. Pending Notice of Motion is also disposed of.
(C.V. BHADANG, J )
1 of 1
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court ought to entertain a writ petition involving disputed questions of fact and boundaries or refer the matter to a Civil Court.
Ramchandra Kanu Mendadkar
State of Maharashtra
BMC
A.S. OKA
C.V. BHADANG
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
