J-WP-3448-26 1/8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.3448 OF 2026 1. Mr. Ranjit Prakash Solanke Age 42 Years, Occ: Agriculturist & Service, R/o. Plot No. 41, Narmada Colony, Katol Road, Nagpur - 440013 Through its power of attorney of petitioner no.1, Mr. Prakash Kashirao Solanke 2. Mrs. Vaishali Pawan Deshmukh Age 44 Years, Occ:Agriculturist & Service, R/o. Flat No. 26, Dream Mini Market, Jail Road, Nashik Road, Nashik - 422101. … Petitioners -vs- 1. Mr. Vinod @ Balya Devrao Bhusari, Age 40 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. At. Post. Khandala, Walni Road, Nagpur Rural, Tah & Distt. Nagpur 2. Mr. Devrao Narayan Bhusari, Age 60 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. At. Post.Khandala, Walni Road, Nagpur Rural, Tah & Distt. Nagpur 3. Mr. Sachin Vitthal Tarvatkar, Age 40 Years, Occ: Business R/o. At. Post. Khairi, Pardi, Tah & Distt. Nagpur 4. Mr. Prashant Vitthal Tarvatkar, Age 45 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. At. Post. Khairi, Pardi, Tah & Distt. Nagpur 5. Mr. Vitthal Tarvatkar, Age 65 Years, Occ: Business, R/o. At. Post. Khairi, Pardi, Tah & Distt. Nagpur … Respondents 2026:BHC-NAG:10738 J-WP-3448-26 2/8 Ms Ashwini M. Sakhare, Advocate for petitioner. Shri Sandip Marathe, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J. ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON : August 11, 2026 JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : August 18, 2026 Judgment : Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this Petition, the Petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 12.01.2026 passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 343 of 2025 by the learned District Judge, Nagpur, whereby the order dated 23.09.2025 passed in R.C.S. No. 745 of 2024 by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, was set aside. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: (3.1) The Petitioners are the owners of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 50/1, admeasuring 0.85 hectare, situated at Village Pardi, Tahsil Nagpur (Rural), District Nagpur, bounded on the East by Survey No. 49, on the West by Survey No. 50/2, on the North by a road and on the South by Survey No. 65. The said property was purchased by the J-WP-3448-26 3/8 Petitioners from one Varsha M. Waghmare by a registered Sale Deed dated 23.11.2020. (3.2) Thereafter, the Petitioners erected barbed-wire fencing to protect their property. Subsequently, the Respondents claimed an easementary right of passage through the Petitioners' land. A dispute arose between the parties, and the Petitioners filed a civil suit against the Respondents, which is pending before the trial court. (3.3) During the pendency of the suit, the Respondents filed an application before the Tahsildar alleging obstruction. The Tahsildar, in Revenue Case No. 3/LND-10/2023-2024, passed an order dated 28.06.2024. The Petitioner challenged the said order before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur, but the appeal was dismissed by order dated 18.07.2024. (3.4) The learned trial court, by order dated 23.09.2025, partly allowed the application filed by the Petitioners and temporarily restrained the Respondents from causing disturbance to the Petitioners' possession of the suit property until the disposal of the suit. (3.5) Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondents preferred an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before the appellate court. By order dated J-WP-3448-26 4/8 12.01.2026, the appellate court allowed the Passed by trial court appeal, set aside the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by the trial Court and rejected the application For temporary injunction. The Petitioner has therefore approached this Court. 4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the original seller of the Respondents' land cannot grant a right of passage to the Respondents through the land of another owner. It is further submitted that the said land cannot be used for movement of bullock carts, tractors or JCB machines by constructing a road thereon. Learned Counsel further submits that the alleged path (dhura) is not mentioned in any government record. 5. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits that the Revenue Authority committed an error by ignoring the official Village Map and satellite imagery, which clearly show existing public access routes for Survey Nos. 44, 45, 62, 63 and 64. The Respondents are not landlocked and have alternate means of access. Where an alternative route exists, even if less convenient, the law does not permit creation of a new way through another person's land merely for the sake of convenience. J-WP-3448-26 5/8 6. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the respective parties, I have gone through the record of the matter. Rival contentions fall for my consideration. Bare perusal of the plaint would reveal that a suit for declaration and injunction is filed by the Petitioners herein. The declaration is regarding they being statutory owners and possessor in respect of the suit property have every right to protect their peaceful possession. A permanent injunction is also claimed restraining the defendants or any other person claiming through them from disturbing the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. 7. Ancillary to the said plaint, an application for temporary injunction was filed. Bare perusal of the order below Exhibit-5 i.e. application for temporary injunction, passed by the trial Court would reveal that it nowhere points out any justifiable reasons for allowing the application of the plaintiff partly. In paragraph 9 of the said order, an omnibus observation is made and it is “inferred” that field of the plaintiff is bearing survey No.50/1 and is compounded with wire fencing and there is a way between the two field survey Nos.49 and 50/1. It can thus be seen that the order of the trial Court suffers from surmises and conjectures. It has not appreciated the case set up by the defendants and more particularly the fact that J-WP-3448-26 6/8 there is a litigation between the parties before the Revenue Authorities. Thus without appreciating the contentions raised by the parties has directed the Court to grant temporary injunction in favour of the Petitioners herein. 8. However, judgment in the appeal filed by the Respondents i.e. original defendants would reveal that the appellate Court has entirely considered the case in hand. Reasoning as can be seen in paragraphs 9, 12, 13, 14 and 15 onwards would reveal that the appellate Court has meticulously considered the case of the parties. It has went on to record a finding that a trial Court has also noticed the existence of way between the said suit fields. It disturbed the findings of the trial Court since the findings, according to the appellant Court are without considering the entire material on record and more particularly, the orders passed in litigation before the Revenue Authorities. In paragraph 15 in the judgment, it has categorically recorded a finding that existence of the way from dhura of survey Nos.49 and 50/1 is prima facie shown by the defendants and therefore any order to restrain the defendants from using that way could not be granted. It has further observed that if temporary injunction could have been granted, it would be for restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs for cultivating their suit land and causing damage to their suit J-WP-3448-26 7/8 land. It has therefore chosen to overturn the findings of the trial Court being well aware of the limited scope of appeal against the order of temporary injunction which can be seen in paragraph 12 of the judgment. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a celebrated judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Wander Ltd. And anr. vs. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 SCC (Supp) 727 to submit that the appellate Court has acted in excess of jurisdiction. She points me out paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment to support her contention. The proposition laid down in the said judgment cannot be disputed at all. However, it does not mean that the discretion which is exercised by the trial Court if it is exercised capriciously or perversely, cannot be disturbed by the appellate Court. Infact in paragraph 9, the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down that where a discretion is shown to be exercised perversely or where the Court has ignored the settled principles of law, it would be within the realm of the appellate jurisdiction to interfere with those findings. 10. As already stated supra, the trial Court has not given any cogent finding and has by cryptic order granted injunction in favour of the Petitioners. The appellate Court however by assessing the entire J-WP-3448-26 8/8 material on record has rejected the application for temporary injunction. 11. In that view of the matter, I do not find any perversity in the order of the appellate Court warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. The petition is without merit and is liable to be rejected. Same is rejected. 12. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 19/08/2026 10:40:29