Disposed

Baliram Govind Gaikwad v. Ashok Tatyaba Ohol and Others

Bombay HC8 Nov 2017WP/10913/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding a temporary injunction order in a civil suit concerning property possession, the High Court declined to interfere substantively but directed parties to maintain status-quo and ordered the trial court to dispose of the suit within one year.

What did the court decide?

Status-quo maintained; Trial Court directed to dispose suit within one year.

Baliram Govind Gaikwad Vs Ashok Tatyaba Ohol and Others — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

916 WP.10913.17.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

916 WRIT PETITION NO. 10913 OF 2017

¶5

BALIRAM GOVIND GAIKWAD VERSUS ASHOK TATYABA OHOL AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Satyajit S. Bora. Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 : Mr. Rahul R. Karpe.

¶7

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV, J. DATE : 08^th November, 2017.

¶8

ORDER:

¶9

. Heard finally with consent.

¶10

2 The learned District Judge-2, Shrirampur vide impugned order dated 10^th August, 2017 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.26 of 2007 allowed the appeal with costs and quashed and set aside the order passed by the Trial Court dated 16^th November, 2005 below Exhibit 5 in Regular Civil Suit No.175 of 2005 and rejected the application Exhibit 5 for grant of temporary injunction.

¶11

3 It appears that the Petitioner has instituted the suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.175 of 2005 and also submitted an application Exhibit 5 to protect his possession over the suit property. The said application Exhibit 5 came to be allowed on 16^th November, 2005.

¶12

2 916 WP.10913.17.odt

¶13

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Trial Court, the Respondents / Defendants preferred Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.26 of 2007. Though the learned District Judge, Shrirampur has disposed of the said appeal in the year 2017, in the year 2007 itself, the learned District Judge has stayed the effect of the order passed below Exhibit 5 by the Trial Court and directed the parties to maintain the status-quo as on 10^th August, 2007.

¶14

4 Thus, considering this long duration, I am not inclined to interfere in the order passed by the lower Appellate Court. However, considering the fact that the learned Judge of the lower Appellate Court has directed the parties to maintain status-quo way back in the year 2007, I prefer to direct the parties to maintain the status-quo till the disposal of the suit with further directions to the Trial Court to expedite the hearing of the suit and dispose it of within one year as directed by the lower Appellate Court. The writ petition is accordingly

¶15

disposed of.

¶16

[ V. K. JADHAV, J. ]

¶17

ndm

Baliram Govind Gaikwad v. Ashok Tatyaba Ohol and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram Govind Gaikwad v. Ashok Tatyaba Ohol 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

Sau Kamalbai Sanjivanrao Ahankari Vs Smt Mehrunnisa Musakhan Pathan and Another

Udgir Municipal Council, Latur Vs Abdul Raheman Ismail Saheb Malang and Others

Laxuman Veerbhadrappa Ambesange Vs the Joint Charity Cmmissioner Latur and Others

Anusayabai Suryabhan Aher and Others Vs Mandyabai Suryabhan Aher and Another

Krushna Madanrao Sabale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shaikh Meena Shaikh Abdul Vs Sayyed Jaker Sayyed Shahabuddin