Smt. Ranjana Gangaram Dhondkar Vs Smt. Savitrabai Dharma Dhondkar and Anr.

¶1

16-WP2907-2019.DOC

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2907 OF 2019

¶4

Ranjana Gangaram Dhondkar...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Savitrabai Dharma Dhoondkar & Anr....Respondents

¶7

Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude, with Mr. Sumit Sonare, for the
Petitioner.

¶8

Mr. Shriniwas Singh, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶9

CORAM: Smt. Bharati Dangre, J. DATED: 20th December 2021

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

1.Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the
learned Counsel for the Respondents. The Petitioner is
aggrieved by the concurrent finding recorded by the learned
Civil Judge Junior Division, Junnar passed below Exhibit 5 in
Regular Civil Suit No. 201 of 2018 as well as the order passed
by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge, Khed-Rajgurunagar,
Pune on 29.09.2018 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 16 of
2017, when the earlier order is confirmed.

¶12

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2021.12.2313:39:54 +0530 2. It is pertinent to note that the Regular Civil Suit is filed

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

16-WP2907-2019.DOC

¶15

in the year 2010 and the first order below Exhibit 5 was
passed on 18.03.2017, whereas the order by the Appellate
Court was passed on 29.09.2018. The position as such, as
determined by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge on
29.09.2018, continue to remain in force till this Writ Petition
is heard.

¶16

3.The Counsel for the Petitioner has invited my attention
to the order passed below Exhibit 5, where the learned Trial
Judge has failed to consider the well settled parameters while
dealing with the application below Exhibit 5 by recording a
prima facie case and strangely by referring to a pending
Regular Civil Suit No. 46 of 2008, the observation of the
learned Judge is that in order to avoid contradictory finding in
the present suit and the earlier suit filed by the Defendants
seeking partition, he has not recorded any finding. Another
reason, from which it can be inferred that the learned Judge
has faulted, is when on bare reading of the plaint, he has
recorded that in the application (Exhibit 5), the Plaintiff has
suppressed material fact as to the pendency of Regular Civil
Suit No. 46 of 2008, in respect of the suit property.

¶17

That finding cannot be sustained, in view of a specific
clause contained in the form of ‘cause of action’ wherein the
Plaintiff had disclosed that the Defendants had filed Regular
Civil Suit No. 46 of 2008 and it is pending.

¶18

Page 2 of 5

¶19

16-WP2907-2019.DOC

¶20

I can only observe that the learned Judge has failed to
exercise his power while deciding the application for
temporary injunction (Exhibit 5) and has rejected it
perfunctorily.

¶21

4.I have carefully gone through the order passed by the
Appellate Court which concur with the finding of the First
Court but on a careful reading of the Appellate Court order,
the learned Ad-hoc District Judge has considered the prima
facie case as well as balance of convenience and he also made
an attempt to determine the effect of the earlier suit which is
pending in which partition is claimed by recording that, the
Defendant Keshav Dhondkar has filed Regular Civil Suit No.
46 of 2008 seeking relief of partition and separate possession
of five landed properties and in that suit the present suit
property bearing Gat No. 517 is also mentioned. It further
recorded that during the pendency of the said suit, plaintiff
and others have purchased the property from Dharma
Dhondkar, the Defendant in the first suit. The observation
made by the learned Judge in paragraph 2, persuaded him not
to grant injunction in favour of the Applicant, since he
recorded that in Regular Civil Suit No. 46 of 2008 it is pleaded
that the suit properties were ancestral properties of the
Plaintiff and the Defendants. In the wake of this aforesaid
statement, it was necessary on the part of the Plaintiff to show
that the possession of the suit property was handed over to

¶22

Page 3 of 5

¶23

16-WP2907-2019.DOC

¶24

her on the basis of sale deed and by recording a finding that
since the property was a joint family property, her predecessor
Dharma Dhondkar had no right to execute the sale deed in
respect of the said property since the property was not
partitioned. Recording the prima facie finding that the suit
property is joint family property of Dharma and the
Defendants and the Plaintiff in the subsequent suit will have
to be governed by the doctrine of lis pendens, the relief that is
sought by way of Exhibit 5 is rejected, though on a line of
reasoning quite distinct from the one which has been adopted
for by the learned Trial Court. The Appellate Court has,
therefore, considered the case of the Plaintiff by applying the
parameters of temporary injunction, being prima facie case,
balance of convenience and irreparable loss.

¶25

5.I am not inclined to interfere in the said order, firstly the
same being a properly reasoned order, depending on the facts
of the case, and secondly, for it continue to stand since
29.09.2018. Since the Regular Civil Suit in which injunction is
sought is filed in the year 2010, I deem it expedient to request
the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Junnar to conclude
the proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No. 201 of 2010 within a
period of six months from today.

¶26

6.Needless to state that the parties shall render their
cooperation to the learned Judge in disposing of the said

¶27

Page 4 of 5

¶28

16-WP2907-2019.DOC

¶29

proceedings.

¶30

7.Needless to state that the observations made by the
Appellate Court as well as this Court should be taken only to
be considered qua the decision on Exhibit 5 and will not affect
the merits of the suit.

¶31

8. The Writ Petition is disposed of in these terms.

¶32

(Smt. Bharati Dangre, J.)

¶33

Page 5 of 5

Smt. Ranjana Gangaram Dhondkar v. Smt. Savitrabai Dharma Dhondkar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ranjana Gangaram Dhondkar v. Smt. Savitrabai Dharma Dhondkar and Anr.

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

Bhimrav Bapu Chavan Vs Manisha Alias Suman Mohan Golivadekar and Ors.

Kavishanlal Gangasahay Agrawal Vs Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors.

M/S. Kermani Transport Company Thr. Poa Mr. Kishor Shrikant Raje Vs Smt. Alka Yogikisan Agarwal and Others

M/S. Deepak Builders Private Limited Vs Sureshkumar Pukhraji Jain Alias Khimsera and Anr.

Smt. Janabai Shivram Chothe through Poa Suresh Shivram Chothe Vs Shri. Balgonda Shivagouda Patil and Ors.

Prakash Namdev Shinde and Ors. Vs Dhananjay Ramchandra Bhosale