Harish Keshav Bamniya and Ors. vs Shankar Bhaduji Nimsatkar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Harish Keshav Bamniya and Ors. vs Shankar Bhaduji Nimsatkar — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: parties directed to maintain status quo during pendency of R.C.A. No.105 of 2025; appellate court requested to decide the appeal expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of the order.

Issue for consideration

In the writ petition challenging rejection of the Order 41 Rule 5 CPC application for stay of execution in R.C.A. No.105 of 2025 (appeal against the decree dated 02.09.2025 in Regular Civil Suit No.51 of 2017), should the parties be directed to maintain the property/status quo during pendency of the appeal?

Court's answer

It is in the interest of justice that the parties maintain the property in the same position during pendency of the appeal, and the interest of justice will be subserved if the parties are directed to maintain status quo during pendency of the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

The parties are directed to maintain status quo during pendency of the appeal (R.C.A. No.105 of 2025).

Key takeaways

The appellate court is requested to decide R.C.A. No.105 of 2025 expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of the order.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.), disposed of Writ Petition No.7252 of 2025 filed by Harish Keshav Bamniya and others against Shankar Bhaduji Nimsatkar, challenging the order dated 07.10.2025 of District Judge-2, Chandrapur, rejecting the appellant/defendant's application at Exhibit 05 under Order 41, Rule 5 CPC for stay of execution of the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2025 in Regular Civil Suit No.51 of 2017, in pending Regular Civil Appeal No.105 of 2025. Noting that by order dated 13.10.2021 in Writ Petition No.886 of 2018 the parties had consented to maintain the position per the operative part of the order dated 28.09.2017 in M.C.A. No.43 of 2017 (whereby the Misc. Civil Appeal was partly allowed: the trial court's restraint on the plaintiff obstructing construction over the suit property till disposal of the suit was set aside, while the temporary restraint on the defendants from illegally dispossessing the plaintiff was maintained), the Court held it in the interest of justice that the property be maintained in the same position during pendency of the appeal, directed both parties to maintain status quo during pendency of the appeal, and requested the appellate court to decide R.C.A. No.105 of 2025 expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of the order.

2026:BHC-NAG:1603

1 26. WP 7252 of 2025.odt

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

WRIT PETITION NO.7252 OF 2025

HARISH KESHAV BAMNIYA AND OTHERS VERSUS

SHANKAR BHADUJI NIMSATKAR

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

Mr. A.M. Chandekar, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for Respondent.

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J. DATED : 28^th JANUARY 2026

PER COURT :-

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

By this petition, the petitioners have challenged the order

dated 07.10.2025, passed by District Judge-2, Chandrapur, on an application at Exhibit 05, in Regular Civil Appeal No.105 of 2025, under Order 41, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “C.P.C.”), by which the appellate court has rejected the said application.

The application under Order 41, Rule 5 of C.P.C., was filed by the appellant/defendant, for stay of execution of the judgment

2 26. WP 7252 of 2025.odt

and decree dated 02.09.2025, passed by the Court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Chandrapur, in Regular Civil Suit No.51 of 2017.

While considering the contentions canvassed by the parties, it is revealed that during pendency of the civil suit, in accordance with an order dated 13.10.2021, passed by this Court, in Writ Petition No.886 of 2018, it was observed that the order passed by the appellate court in M.C.A. No.43 of 2017, dated 28.09.2017, was to be complied by both the parties and the suit was directed to be decided expeditiously. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of by order dated 13.10.2021, by recording the consent of parties to maintain the position as per operative part of the order dated 28.09.2017, in M.C.A. No.43 of 2017, which is reproduced below.

“1. The Misc. Civil Appeal is partly allowed.

The order below Exh.5 passed by the learned 4^th Joint Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Chandrapur is hereby set aside to the extent of restrainment from obstructing construction activities over the suit property by the plaintiff till disposal of the suit.

The impugned order in so far as restraining the defendants temporarily from illegally dispossessing the plaintiff is hereby maintained.

………”

3 26. WP 7252 of 2025.odt

After the suit is finally decided, now the statutory appeal is filed by the defendant bearing R.C.A. No.105 of 2025, which is pending. Having regard to the controversy involved, it will be in the interest of justice that the parties maintain the property in the same position during pendency of the appeal. The interest of justice will be subserved if the parties are directed to maintain status quo during pendency of the appeal and regular civil appeal is directed to be expeditiously decided.

Hence, the writ petition is disposed of. The parties are directed to maintain status quo during pendency of the appeal. The appellate court is requested to decide R.C.A. No.105 of 2025, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of this order.

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

asd