116.WP.7864.2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7864 OF 2019 Sanjay Tukaram Lokhande and Others ...Petitioners Versus Bapu Kisan Lokhande and Others ...Respondents *** Mr. Vikram R. Dhorde, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A. A. Joshi h/f Mr. Sharad V. Natu, Advocate for the Respondents. *** CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. DATE : APRIL 02, 2026 PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 26th April 2018 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-6, Ahmednagar in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 17 of 2018, thereby confirming the order dated 06th December 2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Shrigonda below Exhibit 164 in Regular Civil Suit No. 160 of 2007, whereby application for temporary injunction filed by the respondents/original defendants came to be allowed. 3. Mr. Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that petitioner No. 1 has purchased the western portion of the suit property for valuable consideration admeasuring 3 H 49 R from the heirs of Sakharam Bholu Shinde, whose name appeared in the Shrikant Malani 116.WP.7864.2019 consolidation proceedings as well as in the record of rights and is in possession thereof. It is further submitted that the petitioners have also purchased the eastern half portion admeasuring 3 H 49 R, which stood in the name of Shaila Goraksha Lokhande and Pravin Lokhande, and thus are in possession of the total land admeasuring 6 H 9 R from Gut No. 723. 4. It is submitted that as the heirs of Kisan Maruti Lokhande obstructed the peaceful possession of the petitioners, the petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No. 160 of 2007 for perpetual injunction, wherein an application for temporary injunction was also filed and allowed in their favour. 5. The learned counsel further submits that during the pendency of the proceedings, revenue proceedings were initiated for correction of consolidation scheme and setting aside mutation entry. Proceedings went up to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 5344 of 2012, this Court had granted status quo in respect of mutation entry and stay to the directions regarding submission of draft proposal under the Consolidation Act. 6. It is further submitted that the respondents thereafter filed an application below Exhibit 164 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of Shrikant Malani 116.WP.7864.2019 the Code of Civil Procedure, alleging that the petitioners had started excavation for construction of a water storage tank and sought restraint against such activities. The petitioners opposed the application; however, the learned Trial Court allowed the same. The Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.17 of 2018 preferred by the petitioners also came to be dismissed, hence the present petition is filed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that once an injunction was already operating in favour of the petitioners, the learned Trial Court ought not to have granted the relief in favour of the respondents by allowing application below Exhibit 164. It is contended that the petitioners, being owners of the suit property by virtue of registered sale deeds, were entitled to use the property and the Courts below erred in restraining them. 8. Per contra, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel holding for by Mr. Natu for the respondents, supports the impugned orders and submits that the petitioners, taking undue advantage of the interim injunction, attempted to change the nature of the suit property by undertaking excavation. It is submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly granted injunction to maintain status quo, and the Appellate Court has correctly confirmed the same. Shrikant Malani 116.WP.7864.2019 9. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders. It appears that the petitioners’ claim is based, inter alia, on Mutation Entry No. 11455, which has already been cancelled by the competent authority. Though the petitioners rely upon registered sale deeds, the title of the property is seriously disputed. 10. It is further evident that an interim injunction was already operating in favour of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners were not justified in altering the nature of the suit property, particularly when the dispute regarding title is yet to be adjudicated. 11. In my view, the learned Trial Court has rightly exercised its discretion in allowing the application below Exhibit 164 to preserve the nature of the suit property, and the said order has been correctly affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. Hence, I do not find any perversity or illegality in the impugned orders warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 12. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of merits and is dismissed. No order as to costs. 13. All points are kept open. ( SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J. ) Shrikant Malani