Writ petition challenging concurrent orders of temporary injunction passed against the plaintiff in a suit for perpetual injunction. The court declined to disturb the reasoned orders and instead directed the trial court to decide Regular Civil Suit No.195 of 2017 expeditiously, preferably within six months.
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.
P4.WP.6502.2023.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.6502 OF 2023
Ganpat Dhondiba Shinde (Deceased) through legal heirs / representatives Rahul Ganpat Shinde and Ors.
.. Petitioners
Versus
Rohidas Raghu Aswale and Ors.
.. Respondents
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : MARCH 06, 2024
P.C.:
1. Mentioned. Not on Board. Taken on Board.
2. Heard Mr. Maqdum, learned Advocate for Petitioner.
3. Perused the praecipe dated 06.03.2024 and the Writ
Petition.
4. In the suit for perpetual injunction order passed under Exhibit-5 allowing temporary injunction is against Plaintiff. There are two concurrent orders. The District Judge, Pune has also confirmed and upheld the order passed by the Trial Court by judgment dated 04.11.2019 passed under Exhibit-17 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.388 of 2017.
5. Order dated 04.11.2017 and judgment dated 04.11.2019 prima faice appear to be reasoned orders. I have expressed my mind
1 of 2
P4.WP.6502.2023.doc
to the learned Advocate for Petitioner that I am not inclined to disturb the said orders. He would make one request in that event to expedite the suit. Hence, without delineating anything on merits of the matter considering that Regular Civil Suit is of the year 2017 it would be appropriate to direct the learned Trial Court to decide and adjudicate the Regular Civil Suit No.195 of 2017 finally and as expeditiously as possible and in any event preferably within a period of six months from today.
6. It is clarified that learned Trial Court shall not be influenced
by any observations and findings returned in the aforesaid twin orders considering that these observations are prima facie in nature and the suit shall be determined strictly in accordance with the merits of the matter.
7. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.
H. H. SAWANT
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
HARSHADA Digitally signed byHARSHADA HANUMANTSAWANT HANUMANT SAWANTDate: 2024.03.0617:14:27 +0530
2 of 2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent interim injunction orders against the plaintiff should be disturbed in writ jurisdiction.
Ganpat Dhondiba Shinde (Deceased) through legal heirs / representatives Rahul Ganpat Shinde and Ors.
Rohidas Raghu Aswale and Ors.
MILIND N. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
