Dismissed

Pravin Suryakant Shinde and Anr. v. Prakash Namdev Shinde and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2024RPW/92/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition, filed by strangers to the original suit and appeal, sought to challenge a direction to the Gram Panchayat to remove obstruction. The court held that no error existed in the substantial order and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed on the ground that no error is apparent on the face of the record regarding the direction to the Gram Panchayat.

Pravin Suryakant Shinde and Anr. vs Prakash… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1/3 RPW 92-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

REVIEW PETITION NO. 92 OF 2024

¶4

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.9329 OF 2021

¶6

Pravin Suryakant Shinde And Anr .. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Prakash Namdev Shinde And Ors .. Respondents

¶9

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11002 OF 2024 IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 92 OF 2024

¶10

Pravin Suryakant Shinde And Anr .. Petitioners Versus Prakash Namdev Shinde And Ors .. Respondents

¶11

Mr.Abhishek Deshmukh for the Petitioner in RPW. Mr.Dilip Bodake for Petitioner in Writ Petition.

¶12

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE J. DATED : 14^th AUGUST, 2024

¶13

P.C:-

¶14

The Review Petition is filed, being aggrieved by the order passed on 21/12/2021, when a challenge was raised to the order of the Appellate Court dated 9/11/2021, in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 79 of 2021, by which the injunction granted by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Satara, is reversed and the Appeal was allowed.

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel Mr. Abhishek Deshmukh for the Review Petitioners and Mr. Dilip Bodake for the Respondent.

¶16

The background facts would reveal that the Petitioners, the original Plaintiffs had filed a Regular Civil Suit for permanent injunction by alleging that the ‘South bound concrete road’ described as ‘Gram

¶17

Ashish

¶18

2/3 RPW 92-2024.doc

¶19

Panchayat Road’ is the only way of access to the residents residing on the southern side and when application was filed for temporary injunction, the trial Judge, recording that it is a village road and it provides access to the villagers, granted temporary injunction.

¶20

On an Appeal being filed, the learned Judge expressed a doubt about the said road being a village road, by mentioning that in Form no.8 in respect of the old Gram Panchayat Property No.285, which is subsequently numbered as Property No.302, where it is described as ‘Sarvajanik Dakshinottar Rasta’, the Gram Panchayat record do not find mention about existence of this road, and therefore, the plaintiff was held to be not able to establish a prima facie case.

¶21

My attention was invited to the resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat, where it is clearly recorded that the road does exists from 1970 to 2010, as a village road. However, from the year 2011, its existence has not been carried forward in the record of Gram Panchayat, by a technical mistake and this mistake was sought to be rectified.

¶22

In the wake of the aforesaid, it was held that the order passed by the Appellate Court in the wake of the resolution passed by Gram Panchayat is not sustainable and it was quashed and set aside by restoring the injunction in favour of the Plaintiff.

¶23

The present Review Petition is filed, by the Sarpanch of Village Sangam Mahuli, as well as the Village Development Officer, who were not the party to the original Suit nor they are party to the Appeal filed by the original Defendant before the Appellate Court, and they are aggrieved by the order passed on 21/12/2021, directing Gram Panchayat to take necessary steps to remove the obstruction, if any, to permit a free access to the villagers, and the Review Petition is restricted for the directions given in paragraph no.4 of the order.

¶24

Ashish

¶25

3/3 RPW 92-2024.doc

¶26

On hearing Mr. Deshmukh, and on perusal of the impugned order as well as the Review Petition, which has limited scope, being to ascertain whether there was an error, apparent on the face of record, which the petitioners have failed to establish and pertinent to note that the Review Petition is filed by the strangers to the proceedings and the argument advanced is that they are aggrieved by the directions issued to the Gram Panchayat for removing the obstruction, if any to avail free access.

¶27

Since no error is pointed out in the substantive part of the order dated 21/12/2021, and merely on the account of the ancillary direction to the Gram Panchayat, in my view would not justify exercise of power of review, once it is recorded that the reversal of the injunction order granted by the Civil Judge, on 16/06/2021, by the Appellate Court on 9/11/2021, was not based on a sound reasoning and could not be sustained and hence, the injunction granted has been directed to be restored and as a consequence thereof, it is directed that the Gram Panchayat shall render assistance by removing the necessary encroachment.

¶28

There is no reason for the Review Petitioners, without raising challenge to the merits of matter, to seek review of the said direction, as no error is pointed out to me.

¶29

Hence the Review Petition is dismissed.

¶30

(BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶31

Ashish

Pravin Suryakant Shinde and Anr. v. Prakash Namdev Shinde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pravin Suryakant Shinde and Anr. v. Prakash Namdev Shinde and Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Raheja Universal (Pvt) Limited vs State of Maharashtra, Environment Department Th. Office of Govt. Pleader

Mahavir Enterprise vs State of Maharashtra through the Ministry of Food

Shiv Krupa Enterprise vs State of Maharashtra, Environment and Climate Change Department through Office of Govt. Pleader

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation vs Union of India

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Vivek Krishna

C S Construction vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd.