1 wp 8094.25.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 7 WRIT PETITION NO. 8094 OF 2025 Victor Merrysuse George And Another VERSUS Sujitkumar Singh Gopalprasad Singh ... Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. V.P. Latange CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. Dated : July 10, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated 6.2.2025 passed by the Civil Judge S.D. Ahmednagar in Civil M A No.333 of 2023. 2. Petitioners have instituted R.C.S. No.583 of 2019 seeking decree of perpetual injunction against defendant to the effect that he shall not construct at northern portion of the petitioners property. Respondents owns a plot on northern side of the petitioners property. Aforesaid suit was disposed off in view of a compromise purshis tendered by plaintiffs and defendant, wherein it is stipulated that defendant has already removed encroached part of construction made on the northern side of the petitioners wall. It is stated that dispute between parties has been resolved and no construction shall be 2025:BHC-AUG:18279 2 wp 8094.25.odt raised beside petitioners wall. In terms of the aforesaid purshis, learned Civil Judge S.D. Ahmednagar disposed off the suit as withdrawn. 3. Petitioners/plaintiffs filed M.A. No.333 of 2023 under section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking recall of the order dated 24.3.2023 passed in R.C.S. No.583 of 2019 regarding disposal of suit asserting that respondent/defendant is not removing the construction beside petitioners wall. On 17.7.2023 he refused to remove the encroachment. In short allegation is made that defendant is not acting in terms of the purshis tendered before the Court and, therefore, petitioners/plaintiffs sought recalling of the order. 4. Mr. Latange, learned advocate appearing for petitioners submits that although defendant had agreed to remove encroached portion and further not to erect any construction beside wall of petitioners, he is not acting in accordance with terms of agreement and, therefore, act of respondent amounts to fraud on petitioners; so also, Court and, therefore, application ought to have been allowed thereby recalling order regarding disposal of the suit. 3 wp 8094.25.odt 5. Having considered submissions advanced, it can be observed that plaintiff and defendant filed joint purshis before the Court indicating that they have amicably settled the dispute. Further alleged encroachment made by defendant is also removed with further assurance that no construction will be made beside petitioners wall. Contents of aforesaid purshis were read over to parties and after their affirmation/admission as to correctness purshis was filed. Eventually, order was passed below Exhibit-1 regarding withdrawal of suit. 6. Aforesaid sequence of events would show that appropriate procedure was followed by Trial Court while disposing of the suit. Even, there is no dispute that such purshis was filed voluntarily by mutual understanding of the parties. In this backdrop, if subsequently, respondent/defendant has failed to follow his obligations in terms of the decree, remedy of execution is available or if plaintiff has any fresh cause of action, remedy of filing suit is also available. However, from contents of application, it is not discernible that any valid reason is made out for recalling of the order which is passed on the basis of joint purshis filed by 4 wp 8094.25.odt parties. Plaintiffs/petitioners voluntarily withdrawn the suit, cause of action mentioned in suit was extinguished. 7. In that view of the matter, no fault can be found in the impugned order. In the result, writ petition stands dismissed. ( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. ) … aaa-