Disposed

Shri. Raghunath Keraba Ranage and Anr. v. Shri. Jaypal Appasaheb Patil and Anr.

Bombay HC20 Dec 2023WP/311/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed continuation of interim injunction arrangements pending two writ petitions challenging orders on specific performance and counter-claim. It ordered the trial court to decide the suit for specific performance and counter-claim within one year.

What did the court decide?

Continuation of interim injunction and direction to trial court to decide the suit within one year.

Shri. Raghunath Keraba Ranage and Anr. Vs Shri. Jaypal… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

42-wp4036-2022 with wp311-2020.doc

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4036 OF 2022

¶5

Digitally signed by ATUL ATUL GANESH GANESH KULKARNI KULKARNI Date: 2023.12.20 17:51:50 +0530

¶6

Bajappa Gundu Kamble & Ors.… Petitioners
V/s.
Jaypal Appasaheb Patil… Respondent

¶7

WITH

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.311 OF 2020

¶9

Raghunath Keraba Ranage & Anr.… Petitioners
V/s.
Jaypal Appasaheb Patil & Anr.… Respondents

¶10

Mr. Sandeep S. Koregave with Ms. Pallavi Karanjkar for
the petitioners in both the WPs.

¶11

Mr. Sukumar Ghanavat for respondent No.1.

¶12

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶13

DATED:DECEMBER 20, 2023

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1.The petitioners are defendants in a suit for specific
performance of contract filed by respondent No.1. The Trial Court
by order dated 3 September 2019 rejected temporary injunction
application filed by the plaintiff seeking injunction against
defendants restraining them from disturbing plaintiff’s possession
over the suit property. The Trial Court granted temporary
injunction application filed by the defendants in counter-claim
restraining plaintiff defendants’ possession over the suit property.

¶16

¶17

42-wp4036-2022 with wp311-2020.doc

¶18

2.The Trial Court reversed the order in an appeal. The
defendants, therefore, filed present writ petition.

¶19

3.This Court on 2 March 2021 stayed orders passed by the
Appellate Court, with the result that for more than two and half
years there is no injunction against the defendants from disturbing
plaintiff’s possession over the suit property. The effect of order of 2
March 2021 is that injunction against the plaintiff continues.

¶20

4.Considering the nature of dispute between the parties, i.e.
suit for specific performance and the counter-claim restraining the
plaintiff from disturbing plaintiffs’ possession, it would be in the
interest of justice that the interim arrangement during pendency of
the present writ petitions need to be continued during pendency of
the suit. Hence, following order:

¶21

a)Clause (3) of order dated 2 March 2021 shall be the
interim relief during pendency of Special Civil Suit No.518 of
2018 and the counter-claim;

¶22

b)Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2018,
the Trial Court is directed to decide the suit within one year
from today.

¶23

5.Both the writ petitions stand disposed of in above terms. No
costs.

¶24

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶25

Shri. Raghunath Keraba Ranage and Anr. v. Shri. Jaypal Appasaheb Patil and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Raghunath Keraba Ranage and Anr. v. Shri. Jaypal Appasaheb Patil 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

Dnyandeo Govind Shendge Vs Suresh Bhimrao Nimbalkar and Ors.

Dnyandeo Govind Shendge Vs Dhondiba Satoba Ahiwale

Miteshkumar Kishor Patel Vs Paresh Savji Bhudia

Shri. Bajappa Gundu Kamble and Ors. Vs Shri. Jaypal Appasaheb Patil

Shamshuddin Hussain Shaikh Vs Gp. Capt. Satish Hanumantrao Kenjale and Ors.

Shamshuddin Hussain Shaikh Vs Gp. Capt. Satish Hanumantrao Kenjale and Ors.