Dismissed¶16

Anil S/O Sakharam Bonde and Others v. Arun S/O Dattatray Bonde

Bombay HC27 Feb 2026WP/3076/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

As revealed by the findings recorded by the trial Court and the Appellate Court, the respondent-plaintiff has proved his settled possession over the suit property. ¶13

Anil S/O Sakharam Bonde and Others vs Arun S/O Dattatray Bonde — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned orders granting and confirming temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff were passed without consideration of the stand taken by the petitioners-defendants, and whether the discretionary orders and concurrent findings of the Courts below warrant interference by this Court.

¶15

Court's answer

As revealed by the findings recorded by the trial Court and the Appellate Court, the respondent-plaintiff has proved his settled possession over the suit property.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

On the basis of 7/12 extracts placed on record, the respondent-plaintiff has prima-facie established his ownership over the suit property; considering the documentary evidence available before the Courts below, temporary injunction was granted in his favour.

¶13

Key takeaways

The trial Court exercised its discretion in granting temporary injunction to the respondent-plaintiff, and that discretionary order has been upheld by the Appellate Court.ratio¶14
Contrary to the petitioners' submission that the impugned orders ignored their stand, perusal of the order shows due consideration was given to all factual and legal aspects of the matter.ratio¶15
The discretionary orders passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff, together with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, do not warrant interference by this Court.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) — Anil Sakharam Bonde and Others v. Arun Dattatray Bonde, Writ Petition No. 3076 of 2025, decided 27 February 2026 (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.). Petitioners, the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.26/2021 (a suit for permanent injunction), challenged (i) the trial Court's Order dated 08.12.2021 granting the respondent-plaintiff temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing his peaceful possession, and (ii) the Appellate Court's judgment and order dated 04.10.2024 dismissing their Misc. Civil Appeal No.13/2022. The Court found that the respondent-plaintiff had proved settled possession and, on the basis of 7/12 extracts, prima-facie ownership over the suit property, the temporary injunction resting on the documentary evidence available before the Courts below. The trial Court's exercise of discretion stood upheld by the Appellate Court; despite the petitioners' contention that the orders ignored their stand, due consideration was found to have been given to all factual and legal aspects. Holding that the discretionary orders and the concurrent findings did not warrant interference, the Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:3526

¶2

1 32-WP-3076-2025.odt

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3076 OF 2025

¶5

Anil Sakharam Bonde and Others Vs. Arun Dattatray Bonde

¶6

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

¶7

Mr. C.A. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioners.

¶8

CORAM: PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J . DATED : 27th FEBRUARY, 2026

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶10

Petitioners’ challenge is to the Order dated 08.12.2021 passed by the trial Court thereby, allowing the application for temporary injunction in Regular Civil Suit No.26/2021 and the judgment and order dated 04.10.2024 passed by the Appellate Court, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioners.

¶11

Petitioners’ are the original defendants in the suit for permanent injunction, in which the respondent-plaintiff had filed an application for grant of temporary injunction to protect his possession. By Order dated 08.12.2021, the trial Court allowed the application for temporary injunction and restrained the petitioners-defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession of the respondent-plaintiff over the suit property. The said order was challenged by the defendants by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No.13/2022, which came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 04.10.2024.

¶12

2 32-WP-3076-2025.odt

¶13

Perusal of the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court reveals that the respondent-plaintiff has proved his settled possession over the suit property. On the basis of 7/12 extracts placed on record, the respondent-plaintiff has prima-facie established his ownership over the suit property. Considering the documentary evidence available before the Courts below, the temporary injunction was granted in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

¶14

It has to be noted that the trial Court has exercised the discretion to grant temporary injunction in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and the said discretionary order has been upheld by the Appellate Court.

¶15

Although the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders were passed without considering the stand taken by the petitioners-defendants, however, perusal of the order reveals that due consideration is given to all factual and legal aspects of the matter. The discretionary orders passed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and the concurrent findings, do not warrant interference of this Court.

¶16

In view of above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶17

𝒫𝓇𝒾𝓋𝑒𝓁

Anil S/O Sakharam Bonde and Others v. Arun S/O Dattatray Bonde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil S/O Sakharam Bonde and Others v. Arun S/O Dattatray Bonde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

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