Dismissed

Mohan Eknath Pawar Died Thr. Lrs Nilawati Mohan Pawar and Others v. Baburao Ganpati Pawar and Others

Bombay HC6 Aug 2018WP/5863/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for a court commissioner's appointment in a civil suit seeking perpetual injunction. The petitioner's reliance on the Revenue Code was noted irrelevant to the commissioner's sanction.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; rule discharged.

Mohan Eknath Pawar Died Thr. Lrs Nilawati… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

WP-5863-14.doc

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5863 OF 2014

¶5

1]	Mohan s/o Eknath Pawar, (Died), through L. Rs.
1-A]	Nilawati w/o Mohan Pawar, Age : 54 years, occup. Household, R/o Sai, Tq. & Dist. Latur
1-B]	Balaji s/o Mohan Pawar, Age : 24 years, occup. Agri., R/o Sai. Tq. & Dist. Latur
1-C]	Rekha w/o Pramod Jadhav Age : 29 years, occup. Household, R/o Savgavi, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur
1-D]	Ranjana w/o Umesh Somwanshi, Age : 27 years, occup. Household, R/o Motegaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur
2]	Rukminibai w/o Ramcharan Pawar, Age : 59 years, occup. Household & Agri, R/o Sai, Tq. & Dist. Latur
3]	Dnyaneshwar s/o Ramcharan Pawar, Age : 30 years, occup. Agri., R/o Sai, Tq. & Dist. Latur
4]	Parmeshwar s/o Ramcharan Pawar, Age : 28 years, occup. Agri., R/o Sai, Tq. & Dist. Latur	.. Petitioners/ Orig. Deft. No. 1 to 4]

WP-5863-14.doc

versus

1] Baburao s/o Ganpati Pawar, Age : 53 years, occup. Agri., R/o Sai, Tq. & Dist. Latur

¶10

2] Bharatbai w/o Waman Pawar, Age : 60 years, occup. Household & Agri., R/o Sai, Tq. & Dist. Latur

¶11

3] Krishna Waman Pawar, Age : 32 years, occup Agril, R/o Sai, Tq. & Dist. Latur

¶12

4] Shivaji Waman Pawar, .. Respondents/ Age : 26 yars, occup. Agri., Res. No.1 orig. R/o Sai, Tq. & Dist. Latur Plaintiff. Resp. No.2 to 4 orig. Deft.No.5 to 7

¶13

¶14

Mr Ankush N. Nagargoje, Advocate for petitioners Mr. B. N. Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 1

¶15

CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 6^th August, 2018

¶16

0RAL JUDGMENT :

¶17

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned counsel for appearing parties finally by consent.

¶18

Petitioners - original defendants no. 1 to 4 purport to take exception to order dated 26-03-2014 passed by 4th joint civil judge, junior division, Latur on application Exhibit - 85 in regular civil suit bearing no. 9 of 2011 filed by present respondent no. 1 seeking decree of perpetual injunction,

¶19

WP-5863-14.doc

¶20

¶21

whereunder request of the petitioners for appointment of court commissioner has been rejected.

¶22

After hearing learned counsel for parties, it transpires that pursuant to provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, way has been directed to be given by the sub divisional officer, Latur under order passed at appellate stage and though said order was challenged at the instance of present petitioners before Additional Collector the challenge has not been considered since it was delayed and their delay condonation application has been rejected.

¶23

In the meanwhile, it appears, aforesaid suit is instituted by present respondent no. 1 for perpetual injunction restraining present petitioners from interfering with use of road so directed by authorities under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.

¶24

It appears to be contention of present petitioners - defendants no. 1 to 4 in suit that as a matter of fact, the road on the northern side as granted by sub divisional officer may not be necessary as road on southern side is in existence and said fact is to be verified, and hence application Exhibit – 85 for appointment of court commissioner had been filed.

¶25

WP-5863-14.doc

¶26

¶27

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in the matter or proceedings under Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, aid of orders passed by civil court may be sought and in civil matter aid of revenue authorities ' orders may be sought. In the circumstances, there may be a position of cul-de-sac.

¶28

Although learned counsel for petitioner submits as aforesaid, it may have to be taken into account that present suit is seeking perpetual injunction in respect of road granted by sub divisional officer and the verification of existence of earlier road by appointment of court commissioner may be in digression of subject matter of suit.

¶29

Rejection of application for appointment of court commissioner does not appear to be an impediment for the petitioner to go about the contention as may be advised.

¶30

In the circumstances, reasons for which application has been rejected are not liable to be found fault with.

¶31

Writ petition thus is not entertained and is dismissed.

¶32

It is made clear that observations hitherto in this order have efficacy only for dismissal of this writ petition and does not have influential value any further.

¶33

WP-5863-14.doc

¶34

¶35

It is open for the parties to urge all the points and the authorities as well are not to be bogged down by this order and shall decide the matter on its own merits.

¶36

13. Rule is discharged.

¶37

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE

¶38

pnd/-

Mohan Eknath Pawar Died Thr. Lrs Nilawati Mohan Pawar and Others v. Baburao Ganpati Pawar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Eknath Pawar Died Thr. Lrs Nilawati Mohan Pawar and Others v. Baburao Ganpati Pawar 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

Mahesh Dattatraya Padwal and Another Vs Bharat Bhimrao Padwal

Ashok Deochand Shirname Vs Bhusawal Municipal Council

Late Kakasaheb Mhaske Medical Foundation through Its Trustee and Others Vs Nagapur Masjid Trust Nagpur through Its Trustees and Others

Vidhyadhar Ambadas Kasle Vs Babu Vitthal Kasle and Others

MD Sarwar Subhansab Shaikh Vs M/S Kunal Roadways through Its Proprietor and Another

Dinkar Venka Munde and Others Vs Uttam Rajaram Munde and Others