(1) 34-wp-7412-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7412 OF 2025 SUKHDEO ASARAM SHINDE AND OTHERS VERSUS ARVIND DNYANDEO SHINDE ... Mr. Swapnil Bhushan Patel, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. V. R. Jain, Advocate for Respondent. … CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 01st JULY, 2025. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Advocates appearing for respective parties. 2. The respondent/plaintiff instituted Regular Civil Suit No.290/2023 contending that he purchased suit land under registered sale deed dated 05.04.2016 from respondent no.1 and consequently, he is put into possession. The mutation entry is also certified in his favour on the basis of registered sale deed. 3. Perusal of sale deed shows description plaintiff’s property as under: “dkj.ks [kjsnh[kr fygwu nsrks dh] ft- vkSjaxkckn rk- iSB.k iSdh ekSts 74 tGxkao ;sFkhy tehu xV ua- 213 {ks= 6 gsDVj 40 vkj o iks- [k- 00 vkj vkdkj 24 # 20 iSls ;kiSdh ek>s ekydh rkC;krhy 1 gsDVj 81 vkj tehuhiSdh 60 vkj tehu ftph prq%flek= iqosZl %& jkolkgsc ckaMs ;kaph tehu if’pesl %& ek>h ckdh jkghysyh tehu nf{k.ksl %& ukuklkgsc gkMs ;kaph tehu mRrjsl %& ePNhanz nxMq eqGs ;kaph tehu” 2025:BHC-AUG:17090 (2) 34-wp-7412-2025.odt 4. However, perusal of plaint shows that plaintiff described suit property as under: “vls dh] nkok feGdrhps o.kZu % oknhP;k ekydh o rkC;krhy ekSts 74 tGxkao rk- iSB.k ft- vkSjaxkckn ;sFkhy xV uacj 213 ,dw.k {ks= 1 gsDVj 81 vkj T;kph prq%flek= iqosZl %& Jhear Hkkuwnkl ;kaph tehu if’pesl %& ckiwjko e/kqdj FkksVs ;kaph tehu nf{k.ksl %& ,dukFk ukuk ikBs ;kaph tehu mRrjsl %& ukenso nxMq eqGs ;kaph tehu” 5. The learned Trial Court, prima facie, accepted plaintiff’s case and granted temporary injunction vide impugned order dated 09.05.2024. Clause No.2 of operative part reads thus: “1- vtZ eatqj dj.;kr ;sr vkgs- 2- izfroknhauh vFkok R;kaP;k orhus brj dks.khgh nkO;kpk vafre fudky ykxsi;Zar oknxzLr feGdrhe/;s oknhP;k rkcs dCtkyk dqBY;kgh izdkjs gjdr vMFkGk fuekZ.k d# u;s vlk rqrkZrqrZ eukbZ vkns’k ns.;kr ;sr vkgs- 3- vtkZpk [kpZ nkO;kr lekfo”V dj.;kr ;sbZy-” 6. Aggrieved by aforesaid order defendants filed Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.78/2024 before learned District Judge, Sambhajinagar. The learned District Judge pleased to uphold order passed by Trial Court and dismissed Appeal. 7. Mr. Patel, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners submits that petitioners have purchased specific portion of 60R land from Gut No.213. However, mentioned the boundaries of 1H 81R land from same gut number and based on such description, Trial Court granted injunction against defendants. According to (3) 34-wp-7412-2025.odt him, plaintiff is neither owner nor possessor of property as described in plaint and, therefore, injunction could not have been granted. According to Mr. Patel, aforesaid aspect is ignored by Appellate Court while dismissing Appeal. 8. Per contra, Mr. Jain, learned Advocate appearing for respondent invites attention of this Court to observations in impugned order and submits that no prejudice would be caused to defendants since two Courts have observed that plaintiff has purchased 60R land. However, while mentioning boundaries in suit, he has given description of 1H 81R land, which is entire area of gut number. 9. Having considered submissions advanced, it is evident that plaintiff has given four boundaries of entire 1H 81R land from Gut No.213, whereas he is owner and possessor of only 60R land under sale deed. The Courts below completely ignored aforesaid fact and granted injunction, thereby restraining defendants from interfering in the suit property as described in plaint as well as application for temporary injunction. It cannot be disputed that four boundaries mentioned in plaint does not depict ownership of plaintiff on the basis of sale deed dated 05.04.2016. If plaintiff has not described boundaries as per sale deed and claimed relief of injunction based on boundaries of entire area from Gut No.213, Courts below could (4) 34-wp-7412-2025.odt not have entertained application on the basis of defective pleadings. It has certainly caused prejudice to defendants. 10. In that view of the matter, Writ Petition is allowed in terms of prayer Clause (C). However, it is made clear that in case plaintiff amends plaint, particularly description of suit property in tune with sale deed, he shall be entitled to claim relief of temporary injunction and in that case, Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders on its own merits. (S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR) JUDGE Devendra/July-2025