69-WP-16701-2024=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16701 OF 2024 Bilal Papa @ Papamiya Pakhale, (Inamdar) and Ors. … Petitioners Vs. Baburao Sampati Kamble and Ors. … Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 5963 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 16701 OF 2024 Baburao Sampati Kamble and Ors. … Applicants Vs. Bilal Papa @ Papamiya Pakhale, (Inamdar) and Ors. … Respondents …………. Mr. Machhindra Patil for the Petitioners Ms. Babita Pandey for the Respondents …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026. FINAL ORDER : . Heard both sides. 2. The Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 22.10.2024 passed below Exh.5 in R.C.A. No. 60 of 2024 by lower appellate Court granting stay to the implementation of judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that going by the Sale Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 6 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2026.09.08 13:14:51 +0530 69-WP-16701-2024=.doc Deed dated 02.10.1974, only land measuring 1 H and 60 R of Survey No. 39/3 was transferred and it was not entire 2 H and 10 R. The claim of the respondents over and above 1 H and 60 R is untenable. It is submitted that trial Court has properly appreciated evidence on record and passed decree which need not have been stayed. It is further submitted that the petitioners are entitled to 50 R of land of Gat No.1250. Reliance is placed on interim order passed by this Court on 14.02.2025 to buttress the submission that the same situation be continued and appeal be decided expeditiously. It is further submitted that lower Appellate Court committed error of jurisdiction in recording findings in respect of disintegration of the Survey No.39/3 into Survey No.40 and thereafter into Gat No.1250. It is vehemently submitted that the Revenue record would indicate that only 1 H 60 R was transferred. Learned counsel has taken me through the Revenue record to corroborate the submissions. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would refer to the affidavit-in-reply. It is submitted that earlier order passed by this Court on 14.02.2025 was before filing of the reply and relevant documents. It is vehemently contended that the sale deed in question refers to entire Pot Hissa, which would cover 2 H and 10 R as subject matter. It is further submitted that the petitioners were unsuccessful before the Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 6 69-WP-16701-2024=.doc Revenue Authorities and the attempts to correct the area failed before Tahasildar as well as Sub-Divisional Officer. My attention is adverted to the statement of the petitioners which would indicate that since 1974 till 2024 the disputed 50 R was not cultivated by them. 5. The petitioners had filed R.C.S. No.160 of 2018 for declaration and injunction as such. It was contested by the petitioners. After full fledge trial the suit was decreed partly by judgment dated 22.04.2024. The decree is subjected to challenge in R.C.A. No.603 of 2024. The petitioners preferred Application Exh.5. The decree was stayed initially on 21.06.2024. It was confirmed by the impugned order. 6. Both counsel have made rival submissions regarding area alienated by forefather of the petitioners to the respondents vide Sale Deed dated 02.10.1974. It needs to observe that the Sale Deed does not stipulate four boundaries. It refers to area of 1 H and 60 R of Survey No. 39/3 and simultaneously refers to entire sub division of the land, which has created confusion. The whole controversy revolves around as to whether area of 1 H 60 R was transferred or 2 H and 10 R. I need not delve upon this point at this stage of the proceedings. It would be decided during the course of appeal. 7. Both counsel have taken me through the Revenue record in support Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 6 69-WP-16701-2024=.doc of their claims. The land was originally registered as Survey No.39, which was subjected to proceedings of consolidation and fragmentation and disintegrated into 39/3, 40 and Gat No.1250. Survey No.39/3 is shown to be to the extent of 1 H 60 R in the revenue record after 1975 but the dispute still remains as to whether Survey No.39/3 was transferred or 40/3 was transferred. The present Gat No.1250 is emanating from Survey No.40/3. The Gat No.1246 is emanating from Survey No.39/3. There needs objective scrutiny by the Appellate Court in this regard. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon attempts made by the petitioners for correction of the revenue record. The petitioners had approached Tahasildar in this regard soliciting the correction under Section 155. By order dated 31.12.2011, Tahsdildar rejected the Application. It was confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in Appeal No.155 of 2015. I find prima facie substance in the contention of the respondents that entire area of 2 H 60 R has been transferred vide Sale Deed dated 02.10.1974 albeit it would be subject to the adjudication by the lower Appellate Court. 9. While examining the matter for consideration of the Application under Order XXXXI Rule 5 of the CPC, the core issue needs to be addressed as to the consequences which would follow if the decree Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 6 69-WP-16701-2024=.doc appealed against is not stayed. The relief claimed by the petitioners before the trial Court and the decree passed by the trial Court on 22.04.2024 are vulnerable. The suit is filed for declaration and correction of the record, possession of 50 R and injunction. It would be the matter of adjudication by the lower Appellate Court but till then, the execution of decree needs to be stayed in its entirety, otherwise that may lead to complications and that would frustrate the remedy of appeal availed by the respondents. 10. The affidavit-in-reply and the documents filed by the respondents were not before the co-ordinate bench when the order was passed on 14.02.2025. In that view of the matter, interim orders passed by this Court would not detain me from considering the matter afresh and differently also. 11. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order, rather it protects the right and the interest of both sides and prevents further complication in the matter. 12. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. The appellate Court is requested to decide the appeal on its own merits expeditiously. 13. In view of dismissal of the Writ Petition, pending applications, if also, also stands disposed of. Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 6 69-WP-16701-2024=.doc 14. After pronouncement of the order, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks suspension of the order which is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents. 15. I do not find any reason to suspend the order. I have already observed that in order to avoid the complications it is desirable to uphold the impugned order. The request is rejected. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 6 of 6