Dismissed¶27

Pradip Jaysing Rathod and Others v. Premanand Motiramji Lahane and Others

Bombay HC14 Jan 2026WP/4363/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench; Writ Petition No. 4363 of 2025 (decided 02.02.2026, Khubalkar J.); temporary injunction; counterclaim; Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC; possession of suit property; registered sale deeds dated 22.02.1988, 25.02.2002, 31.05.2002; mutation entries; 7/12 extracts; concurrent findings of trial Court and appellate Court; no perversity in exercise of discretion; Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 2021; Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.137 of 2022; Akola; interim protection during pendency of suit; petition dismissed, rule discharged, no costs.

What did the court decide?

The concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in favour of the defendants regarding possession of the suit property are based on the material placed on record. ¶26

Pradip Jaysing Rathod and Others vs Premanand Motiramji Lahane and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of the trial Court and the appellate Court granting temporary injunction in the counterclaim in favour of respondent no.1/defendant no.1 warrant interference in the writ petition. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

The discretion exercised by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is based upon material available before it, depicts sound reasoning and does not demonstrate any perversity; accordingly, no interference is warranted with the discretionary orders granting temporary injunction.

¶25

Ratio / Principle

The concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below in favour of the defendants regarding possession of the suit property are based on the material placed on record.

¶26

Key takeaways

The petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed; rule is discharged with no order as to costs.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Temporary injunction in counterclaim upheld — writ petition dismissed. Plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 2021 (for declaration, possession and permanent injunction) challenged the trial Court's order dated 19.10.2022 allowing the defendants' Exhibit-14 application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and the appellate Court's judgment and order dated 10.03.2025 in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.137 of 2022, both granting temporary injunction protecting defendant no.1's possession over the suit property. Defendant no.1 claimed ownership through three registered sale-deeds dated 22.02.1988, 25.02.2002 and 31.05.2002 executed in favour of his mother Pushpamala Motiramji Lahane, supported by mutation entries and 7/12 extracts; both Courts below concurrently found his possession established. Holding that the concurrent findings rested on the material on record and that the discretion exercised was sound and free of perversity, the High Court declined interference, dismissed the petition, discharged the rule and made no order as to costs.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:2269

¶2

0202WP4363-25.odt 1 Judgment

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4363 OF 2025

¶5

1. Pradip Jaysing Rathod, Aged 41 years, Occ: Service, R/o Umardari, Tq. Barshitakali, District Akola.

¶6

Dipak Jaysing Rathod, Aged 39 years, Occ: Service, R/o Umardari, Tq. Barshitakali, District Akola.

¶7

Anita Vasant Chavhan, Aged 43 years, Occ:Housewife, R/o Deoulgaon Brahma, Tq. Patur, District Akola.

¶8

Sunita Anil Ade, Aged 37 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o Renuka Nagar, Dabki Road, Akola, Tq. & Dist.Akola. PETITIONERS

¶9

VERSUS

¶10

Premanand Motiramji Lahane, Aged 64 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Pinjar, Tq. Barshitakli, Dist. Akola.

¶11

Subodh Motiramji Lahane, Aged 71 years, Occ:Founder of Institution, R/o Pinjar, Tq. Barshitakli, Dist. Akola.

¶12

Vikas Motiramji Lahane, Aged 75 years, Occ:Agriculturist, R/o Pinjar, Tq. Barshitakali, District Akola.

¶13

Vidyatai Shrungash Thakare, Aged 60 years, Occ: Housewife, R/o At Bahirkhed, Post Januna, Tq. Barshitakali, District Akola.

¶14

Shridevi Vasantrao Sable, Aged 58 years, Occ: Household, R/o Durga Chowk, Behind Khandesh Dairy, Akola, Tq. and District Akola. RESPONDENTS

¶15

______________________________________________________________ Shri P.J. Mehta, counsel for the petitioners. Shri S.S. Deshpande, counsel for the respondents.

¶16

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 02, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT

¶17

RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of

¶18

the learned counsel for the parties.

¶19

By this petition, the petitioners/plaintiffs challenge the orders

¶20

passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court granting temporary injunction in the counter claim in favour of the respondent no.1/ defendant no.1, thereby protecting their possession over the suit property.

¶21

0202WP4363-25.odt 2 Judgment

¶22

The petitioners are the original plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 2021 instituted for declaration, possession and permanent injunction against the respondents. In the said suit, the defendants filed a counterclaim along with an application at Exhibit 14 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”), seeking temporary injunction against the plaintiffs. The said application came to be allowed by order dated 19.10.2022, restraining the plaintiffs and their agents from causing obstruction to the cultivation and possession of defendant no.1 over the suit property during pendency of the suit. The appeal preferred by the plaintiffs, being Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.137 of 2022, was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 10.03.2025. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiffs have assailed both the aforesaid orders in the present petition.

¶23

The controversy arises out of Regular Civil Suit No.69 of 2021, wherein the defendants have filed a counterclaim seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the same property. In support of the counterclaim, the defendants contended that the suit property was owned and possessed by their deceased mother by virtue of registered sale deeds and that they are entitled to protection of such possession. Although the plaintiffs claimed possession over the suit property, they failed to substantiate the same on the basis of any cogent evidence. The trial Court, upon considering the material on record, rejected their contention and recorded a prima facie finding in favour of defendant no.1 on the basis of the registered sale deeds.

¶24

0202WP4363-25.odt 3 Judgment

¶25

A perusal of the impugned orders passed by both the Courts below reveals that concurrent findings are recorded in favour of the defendants regarding possession of the suit property. The defendant no.1 claimed ownership through three registered sale-deeds executed in favour of his mother namely Pushpamala Motiramji Lahane, which are dated 22.02.1988, 25.02.2002 and 31.05.2002. Both the Courts below have recorded that the defendant no.1 established his possession on the basis of the said sale-deeds, the mutation entries and 7/12 extracts and therefore became entitled for protection by way of temporary injunction. The discretion exercised by the trial Court and affirmed by the appellate Court is based upon material available before it and it depicts sound reasoning and does not demonstrate any perversity.

¶26

On perusal of the impugned orders and having regard to the contentions canvassed on behalf of the parties, I am of the firm opinion that the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on the material placed on record. No interference is warranted with the discretionary orders passed by both the Courts granting temporary injunction. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶27

The petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶28

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶29

APTE

¶30

Signed by: Apte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 11/02/2026 12:08:59

Pradip Jaysing Rathod and Others v. Premanand Motiramji Lahane and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradip Jaysing Rathod and Others v. Premanand Motiramji Lahane and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramchandra Parasram Bhure vs the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Others

Sau. Sushma W/O Bharat Thorat vs the Minister, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Others

Deepak Badrinarayan Agrawal and Another vs the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Ors.

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Regional Office , Nagpur vs Yogesh S/O Dhammapal Ramrao Ingole and Others

Ramesh S/O. Arjunrao Sonkusale and Another vs Ghamersingh Kamansingh Karki and Another

Avadhuta Ramrav Vanakhede vs State of Maharashtra,Thr. Principal Secretary, Co-Op., Marketing and Textile Dept., Mumbai and Ors.