WP No.13866 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.13866 OF 2024 Kisan Shivram Modhave, Age : 65 Years, Occ. Agri., All r/o. Wakodi, Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar and others ..Petitioners Vs. Asha Subhash Pimpale Age : 48 Years, Occ. Agri., r/o. Wakodi, Tq and Dist. Ahmednagar ..Respondent ---- Mr.V.C.Solshe, Advocate for petitioners Mr.Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr.Kunal Kale, Advocate for respondent ---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 PER COURT :- The petitioners are defendants in Regular Civil Suit No.421 of 2021 instituted by the plaintiff in the court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar. As per the contentions in the plaint, plaintiff’s Pathway Application was allowed. That, the petitioners to defeat the said order, obstructed the said pathway. In the suit, prayer was made seeking mandatory injunction to remove the obstruction and to reopen the pathway as was directed by the Tahsildar. In the suit, the defendants/petitioners appeared and defended the suit on all counts. 2026:BHC-AUG:42819 2 WP No It was sought to be submitted that the plaintiff and defendants are adjoining land holders and the suit was to counter right of the defendant which was sought to be exercised by different proceedings under the Mamlatdar’s Courts Act. An application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 r/w. Section 151 of C.P.C. was filed by the plaintiff. After hearing the both sides, the trial court pleased to grant temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff/respondent against the petitioners. The petitioners carried the order of injunction in Misc. Civil Appeal No.30 of 2022 before the District Court, Ahmednagar. After hearing the parties vide order dated 02.07.2024 learned District Judge pleased to reject the appeal. As such, the defendants has filed this Writ Petition. 2. Mr.Solshe, learned advocate for the petitioners would submit that there are more than one round of litigation between the same parties. He would refer to another suit which is also pending between same parties. He submits that the plaintiff secured injunction by taking undue benefit of the proceedings those were filed before the revenue authorities. He would submit that under the garb of injunction order the plaintiff attempted to disturb the possession of the petitioners over their own property. With this, he would submit that the Writ Petition be allowed. 3 WP No 3. Mr.Deshmukh, learned senior advocate for the respondents/plaintiffs would stand by the reasons rendered by the trial court as also by the first appellate court. He would submit that both the courts have tested the case of the plaintiff on the principles of prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. He would submit that the suit would proceed further and injunction clamped against the present petitioners is in operation since 04.10.2021. He would submit that it would not be proper in the interest of justice to upset the said order which was even confirmed by the first appellate court which has examined the facts of the case. He would submit that it would be appropriate in the interest of justice if the Writ Petition is disposed of with direction to the trial court to conclude the suit proceedings in a time bound manner. 4. Considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates for the parties. 5. Apparently, the petitioner is suffering temporary injunction issued by the trial court since 04.10.2021. Correctness and legality of the temporary injunction granted by the trial court was examined by the first appellate court also. The first appellate court after hearing both the parties and considering the documents placed before it, has arrived at conclusion to counter with the 4 WP No findings rendered by the trial court. At this juncture, it would not be just and proper to disturb those findings which are recorded on the facts placed before the court. Instead, I am of the considered view to dispose of the Writ Petition to conclude the suit proceedings in a time bound manner and expeditiously within a period of eight months from the date of this order. 6. In view of the above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the following order:- A) The order dated 04.10.2021 passed by learned 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar, on application Exh.5 in Regular Civil Suit No.421 of 2021 and the judgment and order dated 02.07.2024 passed by learned District Judge-5, Ahmednagar in M.C.A. No.30 of 2022 do not call for interference at this stage. B) Considering the nature of litigation which is pending between the two adjoining land holders, the trial court is requested to conclude the suit proceeding expeditiously and preferably within a period of eight months from the date of this order. C) It is clarified that this court has not commended on the merit of the case of either parties. 5 WP No D) All contentions are kept open. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] ……….. KBP