VASUDEV PANDHARINATH RAIKAR Vs. MANOJ MOHAN DALVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, at the stage of admission itself, by consent of Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners, and Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the Respondents.

(2.) This Writ Petition, filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes an exception to the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the two Courts below, thereby allowing the application for interim injunction filed by the Respondents-Plaintiffs at "Exhibit-5" in Special Civil Suit No.1246 of 2016. The order challenged in this Writ Petition is dated 23rd August 2017 passed by the District Judge-14, Pune, thereby dismissing the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.12 of 2017, confirming the order passed below "Exhibit-5" by the Trial Court.

(3.) According to the Petitioners, they are having the 'right of way' from the property of the Respondents, bearing Survey No.49/3A and 49/3C, situate at Village Vadgaon Khurd, Taluka Haveli, Dist. Pune. As the Respondents-Plaintiffs were obstructing to the said 'right of way', they filed a Suit against the Respondents before the Mamlatdar's Court, under Section 5(2) of the Mamlatdars' Courts Act (2 of 1906). The said Suit was allowed and the Mamlatdar was pleased to direct the Respondents that the road may be made clear on the East-West border of the lands bearing Survey Nos.49/3A and 49/3C. The said order was challenged by the Respondents by preferring Revision Application before the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the same, thereby confirming the order of the Mamlatdar. However, during the pendency of the Revision Application, the Respondents filed this Special Civil Suit No.1246 of 2016 before the Trial Court, restraining the Petitioners from causing obstruction to the possession of the Respondents in their lands and also from raising this 'right of way'. Along with the Suit, Respondents also filed an application for interim injunction and the said application came to be allowed by the Trial Court, which order is confirmed by the Appellate Court.