8 WP-16369-25.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 16369 OF 2025 Grampanchayat Devloli Budruk & ors. ..Petitioners Versus Dattatray Balkrishna Deshmukh & ors. …Respondents Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil, a/w Mr. Dushyant B Thakare, for the Petitioners. Mr. Rohit Joshi, for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 01st September 2026 Oral Order :- 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The challenge in this petition is to a judgment and order dated 30th June, 2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Panvel in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.28/2023 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioners – original Defendant Nos.1 to 3 against an order passed by the trial Court in Regular Civil Suit No.451/2021 thereby restraining the appellants and the co- defendants from causing disturbance to the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property till the final disposal of the suit, came to be dismissed by affirming the said order. SAINATH, PA 1/4 SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Digitally signed by SAINATH SANJAY BODKHE Date: 2026.09.03 10:40:32 +0530 8 WP-16369-25.DOC 3. Mr. Gaware Patil, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that, the suit property has not been adequately described and, resultantly, the order passed by the trial Court assumed the character of a blanket injunction restraining the petitioners from dealing with the ‘gaonthan’ land admeasuring 12.5 acres, though the respondents – plaintiffs have laid claim over an area of 114 gunthas only. 4. It was further submitted that, the claim of the respondents – plaintiffs over the said area of land is also tenuous. The proper remedy for the respondents-plaintiffs was to first seek demarcation of the property which is purportedly in their possession from the rest of the ‘gaonthan’ land, seek a declaration in relation thereto and then the consequential relief of injunction. The impugned order, thus, operates to the prejudice of the village panchayat. 5. Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the respondents – plaintiffs countered the submissions on behalf of the petitioners. It was urged that, in Paragraph Nos.3 of the plaint, the plaintiffs have given sufficient description of the suit property and even a rough sketch was annexed to the plaint. 6. As the Courts below have exercised the concurrent discretion to grant limited protection to the respondents- SAINATH, PA 2/4 8 WP-16369-25.DOC plaintiffs, upon appraisal of the material, including the entries in the record of rights, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, this Court does not find any justifiable reason to entertain the petition. 7. So far as the grievance of the petitioners that, the impugned order of injunction operates qua the entire 12.5 acres ‘gaonthan’ land, it would be appropriate to clarify that the petitioners – defendants would be at liberty to file an application before the trial Court to have the suit property and other ‘gaonthan’ land, measured and demarcated by the Cadastral Surveyor. 8. Mr. Joshi, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that, the respondents – plaintiffs are not averse to a Court Commissioner being appointed to measure and demarcate the land. Once the Court Commissioner carries out the survey and submits the report to the Court, the petitioners – defendants would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedies as available in law. 9. Thus, with a clarification that, in the event the petitioners – defendants file an application to appoint a Court Commissioner to measure and demarcate the land, the learned Civil Judge may pass an appropriate order, as expeditiously as SAINATH, PA 3/4 8 WP-16369-25.DOC possible, and, upon the report of the Court Commissioner being filed, the petitioners will have the liberty to work out their remedies as available in law, the Writ Petition stands disposed. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] SAINATH, PA 4/4