901-11547-2025-WP-Jud=.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11547 OF 2025 1. Sugriv Anandrao Kale 2. Prithviraj Sugriv Kale 3. Dadasaheb Sugriv Kale, All R/o Katewadi, Tal, Mohol, Dist. Solapur … Petitioners Vs. 1. Pushpa Pandurang Masal @ Patil 2. Pawan Pandurang Patil Both R/o Katewadi, Tal. Mohol, Dist. Solapur … Respondents …………. Mr. Vaibhav R. Gaikwad a/w Samrat Hajare, Suraj Bhosale for the Petitioners Mr. Prasad P. Kulkarni a/w Nakul V. Shukla, Amol S. Deshinge for the Respondents. …………. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. RESERVED ON : 24th AUGUST, 2026. PRONOUNCED ON : 02nd SEPTEMBER, 2026. JUDGMENT :- . Heard both sides. 2. The petitioners who are original defendants are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 09.05.2025 passed by District Judge 2, Uday S. Jagtap 1 of 5 UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Digitally signed by UDAY SHIVAJI JAGTAP Date: 2026.09.03 10:13:09 +0530 901-11547-2025-WP-Jud=.doc Solapur in Miscellaneous Application No.54 of 2025 confirming the order dated 05.06.2024 passed below Exhibit – 5 passed in R.C.S.No.158 of 2024, thereby clamping injunction against the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that both the Courts below committed error of jurisdiction in perceiving the exact location of land allotted to the petitioners and the land remained with the respondents from Gat No. 120 situate at Katewadi, Tal. Mohol, Dist. Solapur. It is submitted that the documents produced by the petitioners which were discarded, are found to be genuine as the certified copies are issued, indicating location of Gat No.120/1 on the Southern side of petitioners’ Gat No. 120/5. It is submitted that petitioners are in possession of 6 Acre and 2 R which is fortified by Sugarcane bills, construction of Well and the documents produced along with additional affidavit. It is submitted that the map relied upon by the trial Court is suspicious. The appellate Court should have dealt with documents produced by the petitioners. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the documents and the maps produced by the respondents have not been cancelled. Those are not challenged. The documents upon which reliance is placed by the petitioners were not before the Courts below. Uday S. Jagtap 2 of 5 901-11547-2025-WP-Jud=.doc There are concurrent finding of facts which cannot be interfered with. 5. Both sides have rival claims for the location of their respective lands from Gat No.120 situate at Katewadi. Admittedly,original land Gat No.120 was belonging to forefather of the respondents. It was acquired by the competent authority to the extent of 5 Hector and 7 R which was distributed to the various project affected persons including the petitioners. The petitioners were allotted 2 Hector and 42 R which is marked as Gat No. 120/5. The balance land remained with the respondents which is marked as Gat No. 120/1. Its area 1 Hector 99 R which is in possession of the respondents, is the suit land. 6. The respondents claim that the land allotted to the petitioners is on the Southern side. The reliance is placed on the map. The petitioners relied upon the order of allotment dated 20.05.1986, possession receipt and the panchanama. But those documents were discarded by the trial Court due to the stamp of disclaimer. The petitioners secured certified copies of above documents, which do not bear any such stamp. These documents as well as documents bearing the stamp indicate that Gat No.120/5 was situated on the Northern side. Gat No. 135 is shown on the Northern side of the allotted land of the petitioners, which corresponds to the claim of the petitioners. The documents of the Uday S. Jagtap 3 of 5 901-11547-2025-WP-Jud=.doc petitioners should have been taken into account. 7. The petitioners produced the documents before the appellate Court also. I have gone through the map which was not considered by the lower appellate Court. Prima facie, there is no reason to doubt its genuineness. It also depicts that Gat No. 135 is on the Northern side of allotted land to the petitioners and respondents’ land is on the Southern side of the petitioners’ land. I find that the trial Court discarded the documents produced by the petitioners. The lower appellate Court did not take into account the documents produced by the petitioners. The objective scrutiny of both the Courts below can be said to be defective. The concurrent finding of facts are not based upon consideration of the relevant documents on record. 8. I find that its a fit case to remand the matter to the trial Court to conduct objective scrutiny afresh. I, therefore, pass following order :- O R D E R (i) The Writ Petition is allowed partly. (ii) The judgment and order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the District Judge-2, Solapur as well as order dated 05.06.2024 passed below Exh.5 in R.C.S. No. 158 of 2024 are quashed and set aside. (iii) The matter is relegated to the trial Court to decide Application below Exh.5 afresh after extending due opportunity of hearing and Uday S. Jagtap 4 of 5 901-11547-2025-WP-Jud=.doc considering the documents produced by the parties on the merits of the matter. (iv) This exercise shall be completed within a period of three (03) months. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) 9. After the pronouncement of the order, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Kulkarni requests that till the decision of the Application Exh.5 protection be granted by way of order of status-quo. 10. Learned counsel Mr. Gaikwad would oppose the request. He submits that any protection during interregnum would create complications. As both orders passed by Courts below are quashed, there is no need to grant any relief. 11. I have quashed the order below Exh.5 as well as judgment and order passed by the lower Appellate Court. The matter has been relegated to the trial Court to decide Application Exh.5. It would be open for the parties to request the trial Court for the interim protection pointing out exigency. 12. The request made by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot be accepted and the same stands rejected. ( SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. ) Uday S. Jagtap 5 of 5