Plaintiff in a suit for declaration of ownership and cancellation of sale deed challenged rejection of his status quo application. The High Court directed the trial Court to decide the pending temporary injunction application within three months and disposed of the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2024:BHC-AUG:7291
1
3311.24WP
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
910 WRIT PETITION NO. 3311 OF 2024
VAIBHAV LAXMAN KSHIRSAGAR MALI VERSUS LAXMAN MALLIKARJUN TAMBOLKAR
Advocate for the Petitioner : Adv.M.L.Dharashive
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. DATE : 28.03.2024
P.C. :
1] Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the original plaintiff, who has filed suit for declaration of ownership and cancellation of sale deed.
During pendency of the suit, the present respondent filed application seeking police protection on the ground that the present petitioner is disturbing his possession without filing the suit for injunction. In view of the said application, police protection was granted to the respondent by the police authorities. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the police protection, the respondent is
2
3311.24WP
trying to dispossess the petitioner from the suit property. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application below Exh.14 requesting to grant status quo. The trial Court, in absence of the respondent, rejected the status quo application of the petitioner.
2] Without going into the merits of the matter as status quo is prayed by the petitioner during pendency of the application for temporary injunction, the learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Ausa is directed to decide the application for temporary injunction, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of this order.
3] In view of the above direction, the present Writ Petition is disposed of.
[ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE
DDC
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial Court erred in rejecting the petitioner's status quo application without deciding the pending temporary injunction application.
Vaibhav Laxman Kshirsagar Mali
Laxman Mallikarjun Tambolkar
Arun R. Pedneker
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
