54 WP9024.2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9024 OF 2014 1. PANDHARINATH ANIL MATE 2. BEBITAI ASHOK MATE .. Petitioners (Original Defendants No.1 & 2) VERSUS 1. HARJABAI DASHRATH WAGHMARE 2. AGASTI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD. .. Respondents (Respondent No.1 is Orig. Plaintiff & Respondent No.2 is Orig. Defendant No.3) ... Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Sudarshan J Salunke Advocate for Respondent No.1 : Mr. S S Kotkar ... CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J. Date : 27.07.2026 PER COURT :- 1. The Petition raises challenge to the order dated 23.07.2014, rendered by the District and Additional Sessions Judge, Newasa in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.118 of 2014. 2. Petitioners herein are Original Defendants No.1 and 2 and Respondent No.1 is Original Plaintiff and Respondent No.2 is Original Defendant No.3. 3. Regular Civil Suit is presented by the respondent / 2026:BHC-AUG:31333 54 WP9024.2014 -2- plaintiff for declaration and injunction in relation to Survey No.67/2 admeasuring 21 Are. The suit was contested by the defendants / present Petitioners by presenting Written Statement. Even, Plaintiff’s requested for interlocutory injunction, which was rejected by the trial court. Aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff approached to the learned District Judge by presenting the miscellaneous appeal, which is partly allowed by order dated 23.07.2014. Assailing the said order, the Defendants are before this court. 4. Mr. Sudarshan J Salunke, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the land belongs to the forefather of the Petitioners and the permission in that regard to cultivate the land as and when the water level in the Dam recedes is granted in their favour. As such the trial court was justified in not exercising the discretion in favour of the plaintiff. 5. Per contra, Mr. S S Kotkar, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 supports the order. 6. Upon considering the rival submissions and perusal of the material on record, the registered sale deed on record dated 11.11.2013, in relation to subject suit land by which the plaintiff 54 WP9024.2014 -3- is put in possession is undisputed. The trial court although has considered the fact of possession of the Plaintiff, however, has declined to exercise discretion in favour of the plaintiff primarily on the ground of the authorization issued in favour of Bhaskarrao Pathare. 7. Appreciating the said aspect in proper perspective, the first appellate court has allowed the application presented by the plaintiff, while exercising discretion based on the material on record such as the registered Sale Deed in favour of the Plaintiff and the fact that the Plaintiff is in possession of the suit property. 8. Resultantly, the injunction order is granted against the present Petitioners. The exercise of discretion is based on the material to that effect and on settled principles governing grant of injunction. Such as, prima facie, proved possession vis-a-vis balance of convenience and irreparable loss. As such, the same cannot be regarded as perverse. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition does not warrant consideration and the same is dismissed. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) marathe