(1) 907.WP6921.26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITON NO. 6921 OF 2026 Parasram S/o Somaji Uike Vs. Namdeo S/o Jayram Mankar and Others --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Ghanshyam D. Dani, Advocate for the Petitioner(s). CORAM : NANDESH S. DESHPANDE , J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 03, 2026. 1. Heard. 2. The present petition challenges order dated 29.08.2026 passed below Exh. 2 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 22/2026, whereby the Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Gadchiroli, has refused to grant an ex-parte stay of the execution proceedings and has put up the case for hearing on Exh. 2, i.e., the stay application, after appearance of the other side. The order is impugned on the ground that, even though the title of the present petition is defective, the fact remains that he is in possession of the subject property by virtue of a registered sale deed. He submits that he can always agitate the said issue before the executing Court. However, the said objection/application was rejected and a possession warrant has been issued. Looking to the urgency of the matter, the present petition is mentioned and is taken up at 2.30 p.m. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, I am of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would be served by remanding the matter to the Ad-hoc District Judge-1 to decide the said application for an ex-parte injunction. Shubham 2026:BHC-NAG:11637 (2) 907.WP6921.26 4. In that view of the matter, the order dated 29.08.2026 is quashed and set aside. The matter is relegated back to the Ad-hoc District Judge–1 for deciding the application at Exh. 2 within one week from the date of this order. 5. In the meanwhile, it is directed that the possession of the petitioner may not be disturbed. He can seek extension of this interim order if the application for ex-parte injunction is not decided by moving a proper application before the said Court. 6. The petition is disposed of. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) Shubham