Dismissed

Dada Gangadhar Kokane and Others v. Arjun Sitaram Thombre and Another

Bombay HC29 Jan 2019WP/13789/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition challenging a temporary injunction order. The court refused to entertain the writ as a regular civil suit regarding the same property was pending, directing the trial court to decide it expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; trial court directed to decide RCS No. 1056 of 2015 on or before 31.12.2020.

Dada Gangadhar Kokane and Others Vs Arjun Sitaram Thombre… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

WRIT PETITION NO.13789 OF 2018

¶3

DADA GANGADHAR KOKANE AND OTHERS VERSUS ARJUN SITARAM THOMBARE AND ANOTHER

¶4

... Advocate for Petitioners : Shri Dhage Babasaheb V.

¶5

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. Dated: January 29, 2019 ...

¶6

PER COURT :-

¶7

The petitioners / original defendants are aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 13.12.2017, delivered by the appellate Court in MCA Nos.56 and 57 of 2015.

¶8

Learned Advocate for the petitioners strenuously submits that the application seeking temporary injunction filed by the original plaintiff has been allowed and the application Exhibit 17, filed by these defendants, seeking injunction, in their counter claims, has been rejected.

¶9

Learned Advocate for the petitioners has strenuously criticized the impugned order and submits that the same is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. He has drawn my attention to the twenty grounds formulated in the memo of the petition.

¶10

akl/d

¶11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶12

2-WRIT PETITION NO.13789 OF 2018

¶13

I find from the observations of the concurrent orders that 7/12 extracts were in the name of the plaintiff, who is shown as the owner and the possessor of the suit property. His name was entered in the 7/12 extract in view of the registered sale deed. The Regular Civil Suit No. 1056 of 2015 is pending adjudication. The plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property from defendant No.1 on 16.12.1999,

¶14

Considering the above, I do not find it appropriate to entertain this petition. Ends of justice would be met if the pending suit is decided on it's own merits.

¶15

As such, this petition is disposed off and the trial Court is directed to decide RCS No. 1056 of 2015 expeditiously and preferably on/or before 31.12.2020.

¶16

Needless to state, the trial Court would not be influenced by it's observations or by the observations of the appellate Court appearing in the impugned order.

¶17

( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J. )

¶18

akl/d

Dada Gangadhar Kokane and Others v. Arjun Sitaram Thombre and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dada Gangadhar Kokane and Others v. Arjun Sitaram Thombre and Another

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

Pramod Dattatraya Kshire Vs Mandar Prakash Kshire and Ors.

Abdul Gaffurkhan Nayyarkhan Vs Mohammad Ekbal Shaikh Abdulla

Aurangabad Mathadi and Unprotected Labour Board Thru Secretary Vs M/S Cosmo Films Ltd. Aurangabad and Others

Shahaji Ramling More and Anothers Vs Shivaji Ramling More and Others

Laxman Hiraman Parde Vs Akshata Laxman Parde

Sawata Pandurang Labade Vs Baban Dashrath Aamte and Others