Disposed¶9

Shakuntala Dattatray Bhegde and Ors. v. Ganpat Narayan Ghule and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Apr 2026WP/2540/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition; interim injunction application rejected by District Judge, Pune; challenge to rejection of temporary injunction not entertained owing to lapse of time since dismissal of partition Suit; RCA No. 527 of 2019 pending appeal; unauthorised construction grievance; appeal to be decided expeditiously, preferably within nine months; appellate court to heed injunction-application grievances; Bombay High Court; Jamadar, J.; 2026; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with a request to the learned District Judge seized with RCA No. 527 of 2019 to hear and decide the Appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within nine months from communication of the order, with due regard to the Petitioner's grievances highlighted in the temporary-injunction Application. ¶9

Shakuntala Dattatray Bhegde and Ors. vs Ganpat Narayan Ghule and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶9

Issue for consideration

Whether, having regard to the lapse of time since dismissal of the Suit for partition, the Petition challenging the rejection of the Application for temporary injunction during the pendency of the Appeal ought to be entertained.

¶5

Court's answer

Having regard to the lapse of time since the dismissal of the Suit for partition, there is no propriety in entertaining the Petition against the order rejecting the Application for temporary injunction during the pendency of the Appeal.

¶5

Ratio / Principle

The Petition stands disposed of with a request to the learned District Judge seized with RCA No. 527 of 2019 to hear and decide the said Appeal as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of nine months from the date of communication of this order.

¶8

Key takeaways

While deciding RCA No. 527 of 2019, the Appellate Court may have due regard to the grievances of the Petitioner as highlighted in the Application for temporary injunction.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.), Writ Petition No. 2540 of 2026, decided 21st April 2026 (Oral Order): Petitioners challenged the order dated 16th July 2025 of the learned District Judge, Pune, rejecting their Application for interim injunction during the pendency of RCA No. 527 of 2019 — an appeal arising from dismissal of their Suit for partition and consequential relief. Noting that no interim relief had operated since dismissal of the Suit and that unauthorised construction was alleged in the intervening period, the Court held that, given the lapse of time, there was no propriety in entertaining the Petition against the injunction-rejection order. The Petition was disposed of with a request to the District Judge seized with RCA No. 527 of 2019 to hear and decide the Appeal as expeditiously as possible, preferably within nine months of communication of the order, with due regard to the Petitioners' grievances highlighted in the temporary-injunction Application.

¶1

30-WP-2540-2026.DOC

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2540 OF 2026

¶5

Shakuntala Dattatray Bhegde and Ors ..Petitioners Versus Ganpat Narayan Ghule and Ors …Respondents

¶6

Mr. Rohan Mahadik, with Nikitha Butty, i/b The Juris Partners, for the Petitioners.

¶7

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 21^st APRIL 2026

¶8

ORAL ORDER:

¶9

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶10

The challenge in this Petition is to an order dated 16^th July 2025

¶11

ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUN RAMCHANDRA SANKPAL Date: 2026.04.24 09:30:39 +0530

¶13

passed by the learned District Judge, Pune, on an Application for interim injunction during the pendency of the RCA No. 527 of 2019. By the said order learned District Judge has rejected the said Application.

¶14

The Petitioner has instituted a Suit for partition and the consequential relief. The said Suit came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. Being aggrieved the Petitioner had preferred the instant Appeal

No. 527 of 2019.

1/2

ARS

30-WP-2540-2026.DOC

¶19

Evidently there is no interim relief in the matter since the dismissal of the Suit. The grievance of the Petitioner is that unauthorised construction has been erected in the intervening period.

¶20

Having regard to the lapse of time since the dismissal of the Suit for partition, at this juncture there is no propriety in entertaining the Petition against an order which rejects an Application for temporary injunction during the pendency of the Appeal.

¶21

It would be expedient in the interest of justice that RCA No. 527 of 2019 itself be decided as expeditiously as possible.

¶22

While deciding the RCA No. 527 of 2019, the Appellate Court may have due regard to the grievances of the Petitioner as highlighted in the Application for temporary injunction.

¶23

The Petition thus stands disposed with a request to learned District Judge seized with RCA No. 527 of 2019, to hear and decide the said Appeal as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of nine months from the date of communication of this order.

¶24

Petition disposed.

¶25

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

¶26

2/2

¶27

ARS

Shakuntala Dattatray Bhegde and Ors. v. Ganpat Narayan Ghule and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shakuntala Dattatray Bhegde and Ors. v. Ganpat Narayan Ghule and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharmakumar Omprakash Trivedi vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Goverment Pleader and Ors.

Pandurang Sudam Shelar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. Thru. R. K. Mhatre vs Maharashtra Technical Education Soc. and Anr.

Smt. Asha Madhukar Patil and Ors. vs Shri Jayendra @ Jayant Ramdas Patil

Arun Yadav Hivarkar Thru Poa vs Vijay Prabhakar Abdagiri and Ors.

Bindu Rajesh Mishra and Anr. vs Reliance Construction Company