24-sr33.wp10793.2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10793 OF 2024 Ashabai Subhash Pimpale, Age:45 Years, Occ. Agri. r/o. Wakodi, Tq. and Dist. Ahmednagar and others ..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents ---- Ms.Pradnya Talekar, Advocate h/f. Talekar and Associates for petitioners Mr.Vinesh Solshe, Advocate for respondent nos.6 to 15, 16, 17A to 17D, 18 to 22 Mr.K.B.Jadhavar, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 5 ---- CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 15, 2026 PER COURT :- Heard learned advocates for the parties extensively. Considering the short controversy involved in the petition, the same is heard for final disposal at the stage of admission. 2. The petitioners are plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No. 173 of 2022 pending before learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ahmednagar who suffered refusal by the trial court to grant temporary injunction against the respondents/defendants. 2026:BHC-AUG:42821 2 24-sr33.wp10793 3. Ms.Talekar, learned advocate for the petitioners, in short submits that the petitioners and the respondents are adjoining agriculturists and hold adjoining agricultural lands. She would submit that there occurred discord between them taking to the usage of pathway to each other’s land. The respondents instituted proceedings under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdar’s Court’s Act 1906 against the petitioners seeking directions against them to allow usage of pathway to their land. A panchnama was placed on record to substantiate the claim. The petitioners appeared before the Mamlatdar and disputed the plaint. They placed on record a village- map which demonstrated that there was no such pathway passing through the petitioners land and instead there was an independent approach road available to the respondents. However, vide order dated 17.06.2022, The Mamlatdar/Tahsildar, Ahmednagar pleased to grant relief sought by the respondents. 4. Instead of taking up that order in revision under Section 23 of the Act of 1906, the petitioners rushed to the Civil Court vide Regular Civil Suit No.173 of 2022 with comprehensive prayers. In the civil suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 r/w. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction against the defendants/present respondents. 3 24-sr33.wp10793 The respondents/defendants appeared in the suit and defended the same by filing their written statement. Obviously, there were contrary pleadings from both the sides. The petitioners/plaintiffs who was in fact aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Mamlatdar, tried to convince the trial court by producing on record all the documents and particularly the village map wherein an available road for the usage of the respondents/defendants was clearly mentioned. Ms. Talekar, learned advocate for the petitioners submits that despite there being this document on record, the trial court without even discussing a single line on that village map, pleased to reject her application. She would take me to paragraph 17 of the order passed by the trial court wherein it is observed that except the disputed pathway there was no other approach road available to the defendants. She submits that had the trial court seen keenly the said document, i.e. village map, the findings would have been otherwise. Feeling aggrieved by the refusal by the trial court to grant interim injunction, the plaintiffs then rushed to the District Court and filed Misc. Civil Appeal No.175 of 2022. After hearing both the parties learned District Judge-5, Ahmednagar vide judgment and order dated 29.07.2024 concurred with the findings recorded by the trial court. Against that order, the plaintiffs have filed this Writ Petition. 4 24-sr33.wp10793 5. Ms.Talekar, learned advocate for the petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that in the appeal memo also, the petitioners categorically invited attention of the appellate court to the vital document i.e. village map. It was well within the jurisdiction of the first appellate court to consider the said map and to take exception to the findings recorded by the trial court. She submits that merely by concurring the findings recorded by the trial, the appeal also came to be turned down. She would submit that the village map is a vital document which ought to have been considered by both the courts while deciding her application for temporary injunction. She submits that the case of the plaintiffs/petitioners was fully covered by the three parameters required for grant of injunction:(i) prima facie case, (ii) balance of convenience and (iii) irreparable loss. It is her contention that if the village map is seen, it would straightway show a strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. Failure on the part of both the courts below to consider the said document while adjudicating the application for temporary injunction has resulted into irreparable loss to her client. The balance of convenience for grant of injunction was clearly in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. With such arguments, Ms.Talekar prays to allow the petition. 5 24-sr33.wp10793 6. Mr.Solshe, learned advocate for the respondents would stand by the reasoning rendered by the trial court as also the first appellate court. He would submit that the defendants were constrained to take recourse to Section 5 of the 1906 Act as there was obstruction by the plaintiffs/petitioners to the existing pathway that was being used by his client. He would submit that both the orders under challenge contain exhaustive reasoning rendered by the courts below and no error can be found therein. He thus prays to dismiss the petition. 7. Considered the submissions advanced by learned advocates for both sides. Apparently the suit is filed in 2022. The petitioners suffered rejection of their application for temporary injunction vide order dated 01.12.2022. In the later proceedings also there was no favourable order for the petitioners. It is informed that the pleadings are concluded and the trial court is to proceed further by framing issues. Much emphasis is given on the village map, which apparently I find that both the courts below have not at all discussed. 8. It is trite law that when there is an issue in respect of an existing pathway, creation of pathway and obstruction to the existing pathway as also any variance in the existing pathway, the 6 24-sr33.wp10793 Government document, i.e. village map has much significance. The Courts are certainly bound to render some observations on such document even when applications for temporary injunction are pressed into service by respective parties. I find that the said exercise is not done by the trial court as also by the first appellate court. 9. Considering that the civil suit is of 2022 and as observed above the petitioners have failed to get a positive and favourable order firstly in the month of December, 2022, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition requesting the trial court to proceed with the suit expeditiously in a time bound manner. 10. Hence, I pass following order:- A) The Writ Petition stands disposed with a request to the trial court to frame issues within a period of one month from today. Both the parties are at liberty to propose the issues for decision by the trial court. B) Thereafter, the trial court is requested to expedite the suit proceedings and to conclude the same within eight months thereafter. 7 24-sr33.wp10793 C) suffice it to note, the observations rendered by the trial court as also by the first appellate court while deciding the application for temporary injunction are restricted to the extent of those proceedings only. The trial court shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by it while deciding the application for temporary injunction, the observations made by the first appellate court as also this court. D) It is expected that the trial court shall give due weight- age to the village map produced by the plaintiffs on record as is permissible in law and subject to the opportunity to the defendants to dispute the contents of the village map. E) All contentions of the parties are kept open. F) With these observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. [AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.] ……….. KBP