Writ Petitions Nos. 2418 & 3105 of 2025 (N. J. Jamadar, J.; High Court of Judicature at Bombay, decided 12 March 2025) — dismissed. The petitioners (defendants Vishnu Mahadu Deore and another) challenged the District Court's dismissal of their appeals against the order dated 12th September 2023 of the learned Civil Judge, Yeola, which allowed the plaintiffs' (respondents Dada Punja Gangurde and another) temporary injunction application (Exh.5) in RCS No. 57 of 2023 — restraining the defendants from obstructing the suit way running East-West on the northern boundary of Gat No. 177, used to approach agricultural land Gat No. 176, till final disposal — while rejecting the petitioners' parallel injunction application in their counter-suit RCS No. 163 of 2023. The High Court noted three documents referring to the suit way's existence: the old village map; the report of the Executive Engineer, Division I, Yeola that the Yeola-Bharam road initially abutted Gat Nos. 177 and 176 before its alignment changed to pass through Gat No. 145, the rough way on the northern side surviving; and the Tahsildar's spot inspection report showing the way despite an endorsement that it is disputed. Holding the existence of the suit way prima facie established, the Court found the Courts below had acted on objective material; such prima facie findings of fact are not open to interference in exercise of the limited supervisory jurisdiction, nor is the discretionary grant of temporary injunction interferable with in writ jurisdiction. All questions were kept open for the trial, and the trial Court was directed not to be influenced by the observations made. Petitioners' counsel had relied on Pundalik Narayan Pednekar vs. Augusto Fernandes, 2012 AIR (Bom.) 182 (incumbent on plaintiffs to show the time from which user commenced), and urged that the plaintiffs' earlier, withdrawn proceeding under section 5 of the Mamlatdar's Courts Act, 1906 and its spot inspection map showed an alternate road through Gat No. 145, and that claimed easementary rights (prescription/necessity) had no application; these points were not adopted as grounds for interference.
