Dismissed¶25

Babarao Sukhdev Dhote and Others v. Vijay Vittal Bhedekar and Another

Bombay HC27 Feb 2026WP/1842/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 interference; perversity review of interim order; stay application under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC; preservation of status quo during pendency of Regular Civil Appeal No.03 of 2026; nine-year interim arrangement traceable to MCA 12/2016; vacation of temporary injunction upheld in WP 6829/2016; possession of suit property left for appeal adjudication; alleged non-disclosure of Writ Petition No.679 of 2025 (allegations against Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Presiding Officer); writ petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

At the stage of considering the stay application, the appellate court considered all the relevant aspects, including the litigation history and the nine-year interim arrangement, and its approach in granting stay shows no perversity. ¶22

Babarao Sukhdev Dhote and Others vs Vijay Vittal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.01.2026 of the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Darhwa allowing the application for stay under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC during pendency of Regular Civil Appeal No.03 of 2026 suffers from perversity and warrants interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

¶22

Ratio / Principle

The contentions canvassed by the petitioners about their possession of the suit property are subject matter of adjudication in the pending Regular Civil Appeal and were not settled by this Court.

¶22

Key takeaways

Clarification: the observations recorded by the appellate court while deciding the stay application must not influence the Regular Civil Appeal, which is to be decided on the evidence on record and the position of law.obiter¶24
The impugned order exhibits no perversity warranting indulgence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; accordingly the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (neutral citation 2026:BHC-NAG:5364) - Writ Petition No.1842 of 2026, decided 30.03.2026 by Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.; Babarao Sukhdhev Dhote & Ors. v. Vijay Vittal Bhedekar & Anr. The petitioners, original plaintiffs whom the trial court reportedly found in possession, challenged the order dated 23.01.2026 of the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Darhwa (Exhibit 05, Regular Civil Appeal No.03 of 2026) allowing the respondents' application for stay under Order XLI Rule 5 CPC, whereby the appellate court preserved the status quo arrangement that had governed the parties for nearly nine years (the High Court had upheld the vacation of the respondents' temporary injunction in WP 6829/2016 and directed maintenance of the status quo per the appellate court's order in MCA 12/2016). Held: (i) at the stay stage the appellate court considered all relevant aspects and its approach in granting stay shows no perversity; (ii) the petitioners' possession contentions remain subject-matter of adjudication in the pending appeal; (iii) by way of clarification, the appellate court's stay-stage observations are not to influence the appeal, which must be decided on the evidence and the position of law. Finding no perversity warranting indulgence under Article 227, the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Respondents had also alleged non-disclosure of an earlier order of this Court (Writ Petition No.679 of 2025, dated 27.03.2025) concerning allegations by the petitioners against the Presiding Officer of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal; the court's stated grounds for dismissal rest on the absence of perversity in the impugned order.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:5364

¶2

1 44. WP 1842 of 2026.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1842 OF 2026

¶5

BABARAO SUKHDEV DHOTE AND OTHERS VERSUS

¶6

VIJAY VITTAL BHEDEKAR AND ANOTHER

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's orders Coram, Appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

Mr. S.M. Bahirwar, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr T.M. Malnas, Mr. A.J. Gilda, Advocate for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATED : 30^th MARCH 2026

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners as well as learned Advocate for the respondents.

¶12

By this petition, the petitioners have challenged an order dated 23.01.2026, passed by the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Darhwa, at Exhibit 05, in Regular Civil Appeal No.03 of 2026, by which the application for stay under Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is allowed. While passing the impugned order, the appellate court has recorded that the arguable issues raised in the appeal necessitate the preservation of the status quo and by referring to the earlier interim arrangement, which had operated during pendency of the suit, the impugned order is passed. The reference to

¶13

2 44. WP 1842 of 2026.odt

¶14

the earlier arrangement is reflected in para No.8 of the impugned

¶15

order, which is reproduced below.

¶16

“8. The litigation history reveals that during the suit’s pendency, the Honourable High Court (WP 6829/2016) upheld the vacation of the respondents’ temporary injunction. The High Court directed the maintenance of the status quo arrangement as per the appellate court’s order in MCA 12/2016. This interim arrangement, which did not favor the respondents’ claim of exclusive possession, governed the parties for nearly nine years.”

¶17

Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that while recording the findings by the trial court while deciding the civil suit, it is held that the petitioners, who are the original plaintiffs, are in possession of the suit property. He submits that in view of the stay granted by the appellate court by the impugned order, there is a possibility of disturbance to the petitioners’ possession.

¶18

To controvert this contention, learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the respondents are in fact having possession of the suit property and in view of the interim arrangement, which had operated during pendency of the suit, their possession was protected for last nine years. He submits that the petitioners have suppressed material facts about an earlier order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.679 of 2025, dated 27.03.2025, in which this Court has taken note of the conduct of the

¶19

3 44. WP 1842 of 2026.odt

¶20

petitioners, who have made allegations against the Presiding Officer of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. He submits that there is no disclosure of this order in the memorandum of petition and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed on that count.

¶21

By the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the order passed by the appellate court allowing the application for stay during pendency of regular civil appeal. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the appellate court has recorded reasons in para Nos.7 to 10, for granting interim stay. It has to be noted that after considering the litigation history, the appellate court has observed that this Court had directed maintenance of status quo arrangement as per the appellate court’s order in MCA No.12 of 2016 and the said interim arrangement governed the parties for nearly nine years. Considering this aspect along with other aspects on merits, the appellate court has granted stay during pendency of the appeal.

¶22

It has to be noted that the contentions canvassed on behalf of the petitioners about their possession are subject matter of adjudication in the appeal. At the stage of considering the application for stay, the appellate court has considered all the relevant aspects. I do not find any perversity with the approach adopted by the appellate court in granting stay, which would operate during pendency of the

¶23

4 44. WP 1842 of 2026.odt

¶24

appeal. It is, however, clarified that the observations recorded by the appellate court are at the stage of deciding the application for stay and the Regular Civil Appeal is required to be decided by considering the evidence on record and the position of law, without being influenced by these observations.

¶25

In view of the factual and legal aspects mentioned above, I do not find any perversity with the impugned order warranting indulgence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶26

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶27

asd

Babarao Sukhdev Dhote and Others v. Vijay Vittal Bhedekar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babarao Sukhdev Dhote and Others v. Vijay Vittal Bhedekar and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Matsyavyaysay Shakari Sanstha Maryadit, Thr. President Ravi K. Gawai vs State of Maha., Thr. Secy., Dept. of Agri. Animal Husb. Dairy Devpt. and Fisheries, Mumbai and Ors.

Prakash Namdeo Dhole (Dead), through His Lrs. vs Hajrat Shah Badroddhin Darga Thr. President, Hayat Kalandar Sanstha, Mangrulpir and Ors.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Thr. Its Divisional Manager, Nagpur vs Smt. Sunita Wd/O Hemant Lade and Others

Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Telhara, Akola Thr. Chairman, Sunil M. Ingale and Anr. vs Divisional Joint Registrar of Co-Op. Society, Amravati and Ors.

Seva Sahakari Society, Sawargaon-Kanhoba, Thr. Representative, Sanjivani Anand Raut vs District Co-Op. Electoin Authority and Divisional Jt. Registrar,Co-Op. Societies, Amravati and Ors.

Pradeep S/O Sahadev Kapse vs Anushree Pradeep Kapse