957.2052.2024.connected wp IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2052 OF 2024 Sheetal D/o. Sanjay Pawar Age : 35 Years, Occ. : Business Agri. & Household R/o. C/o. Sanjay Dagdu Pawar Bhakti Construction, Beed … PETITIONER (Original defendant) ... VERSUS … Bharat Annarao Sonar, Age : 35 Years, Occ. : Business & Agri, R/o. Plot No. 10, Near Gajanan Maharaj Mandir, Bhakti Construction Beed. … RESPONDENT (Original plaintiff) Mr. N. L. Jadhav, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Anant Devakate, Advocate for the Respondent sole CORAM : ROHIT W. JOSHI, J. DATE : AUGUST 01, 2025 O R A L J U D G M E N T : 1. The respondent - husband has filed a suit for declaration of ownership and perpetual injunction with respect to several properties against his wife, who is the petitioner in the present petition. 2. Although copy of plaint is not filed on record, certified copy of the same is produced for perusal of the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. In the said suit, wife has filed an application vide ‘Exhibit 16 D’ raising objection to territorial jurisdiction of the Court and also limitation. The said application is rejected by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 11.01.2024. Page 1 komal kamble 2025:BHC-AUG:20806 957.2052.2024.connected wp 4. As regards territorial jurisdiction, it needs to be mentioned that admittedly some of the suit properties are located at Beed within the limits of territorial jurisdiction of the learned Jt. Civil Judge, S.D., Beed before whom the suit is filed and only one property is situated at Aurangabad. In that view of the matter, it is obvious that the learned Jt. Civil Judge, S.D., Beed has the territorial jurisdiction to decide the suit. 5. As regards objection pertaining the limitation, the learned Trial Court has observed that going by the plaint averments, the cause of action has arisen on 25.08.2023 and therefore, the suit is within the limitation. The contention of the petitioner - wife is that the cause of action arose on 19.03.2012 when dispute between husband and wife started. Perusal of the plaint will demonstrate that there was a compromise decree between the parties in a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act on 29.10.2021 and the dispute has started because the said compromise could not be worked out and implemented. The learned Trial Court has rightly observed that limitation in the present set of facts will be a mixed question of law and facts. No error can be found with the order passed by the learned Trial Court. 6. Vide order dated 24.04.2024, this Court had directed parties to maintain status quo with respect to the suit properties. The said order is extended till 27.08.2025. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 8. Pending civil applications, if any, stand disposed of. [ROHIT W. JOSHI, J.] Page 2 komal kamble