AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellants are praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned temporary injunction order dated 13/11/2025 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No.224/2025. Vide said order, the learned Judge granted stay to the effect, operation and execution of the judgment and decree dated 31/08/2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mouda, Nagpur in R.C.S. No.21/2019.
Heard Dr Smt Renuka S. Sirpurakar, learned counsel for the appellants, Shri Aryan G. Pardhi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri U. K. Bisen, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5, 9, 10 and 11.
Dr. Smt Sirpurkar submits that respondent No.12 is reported to have sold the property therefore no longer a interest party and affidavit of service along with track consignment report regarding service on respondent No.13 by private mode is filed. Hence she submits that the instant appeal be taken up urgently for hearing as urgent order is required to protect the standing crops of the plaintiffs.
It is submitted that the appellants are the original plaintiffs who have filed R.C.S. No.21/2019 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants/respondents from creating way through the fields of the appellants/plaintiffs. The appellants/plaintiffs are the owners of field Survey No.121 admeasuring 4.4. HR situated at Mouza Dhamangaon, Tahsil Mouda, District Nagpur. All the defendants (respondents herein) being large in number are attempting to create 20 feet wide East-West passage approach road from the middle of the suit field. Initially the dispute was lodged before the Tahsildar under the provisions of Mamlatdar’s Courts Act, 1906. Since the said proceedings were decided against the plaintiffs, they filed revision application before the Collector, Nagpur. The Collector, Nagpur ordered fresh inquiry by the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar conducted inspection of the spot of dispute and drew a map of the site showing approach way i.e pandhan way for defendants. The pandhan road claimed by the plaintiffs was very much shown in the said map. Despite availability of the said approach way, the Tahsildar decided the proceedings in favour of the respondents/defendants vide order dated 29/01/2019 thereby granting all the respondents/defendants the approach way from the middle of the suit field bearing Survey No.121. The said middle way is virtually dividing the survey no. 121 in two equal parts, therefore it is posing threat to standing crops of appellant/plaintiff. Therefore, the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants for restraining them from creating 15’-20 ft. wide road from the suit field. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Mouda vide order dated 31/08/2023 pleased to decree the suit thereby restraining the respondents/defendants from creating way for carriage of tractor or other agricultural equipments from field Survey No.121 admeasuring 4.4 HR situated at Mouza Dhamangaon, Tahsil Mouda or otherwise disturbing or obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the said field.
Dr Smt Sirpurkar, further submitted that the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) Mouda was pleased to observe that apart from the oral testimony of the witnesses, copies of 7/12 extracts of the suit fields (Exhibit-25), Chakbandi Map (Exhibit-29) and Bandobast Map (Exhibit-30), the way/approach road claimed by the defendants is neither shown in the said extracts nor in the maps. On the contrary, in the map of the spot inspection prepared by the Tehsildar (Exhibit-27), an alternate way appears to be in existence for enabling the defendants to access their fields and therefore the claim of the defendants that they did not have any other way to access their fields and that they were using the way from the middle portion of the suit field uninterruptedly till 2012 does not appear to be true. The learned counsel invited attention of this Court to Annexure-XI spot inspection map prepared on 27/12/2018. Relying upon the said map, it was submitted that the dotted lines appearing in Survey No.121 is the approach road which is being claimed by the respondents/defendants for using their bullock carts and tractors. She therefore submitted that the learned appellate Court had committed grave error thereby upsetting the position which was in existence since long by passing the impugned order on 13/11/2025. The learned appellate Court while passing the impugned order has stayed the effect, operation and execution of the decree passed in R.C.S. No.21/2019 on 31/08/2023 by giving unnecessary importance to the earlier order dated 29/01/2019 passed by the learned Tehsildar in revenue case wherein the appellants/plaintiffs were directed to clear the approach way. It is submitted that in the said case, the appellant/plaintiff No.1 Haridas had given consent to give way from dhura i.e. abutting to boundaries and not from the middle portion of field Survey No.121.
Dr Smt Sirpurkar, learned counsel submits that the appellants/ plaintiffs have cultivated and sown the seeds in suit field and now crops are standing in the field. Since the order is passed by the appellate Court granting stay to the order passed by the Civil Court (J.D.) Mouda, the respondents/defendants are using their bullock carts and tractors from middle of the field Survey No.121 which is damaging their crops and therefore she prayed for urgent order restraining the respondents/defendants from using the said disputed approach way till disposal of the appeal by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Nagpur.
Per contra, Shri U. K. Bisen, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5,9,10 and 11 strongly opposed the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs. He submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge is correct and proper and requires no interference. He submitted that the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Mouda has committed an error in decreeing the suit wherein the orders passed by the revenue Authority came to be ignored. He submitted that the trial Court failed to consider that already the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and Mamlatdars Court Act, 1906 were invoked and the said Court has already passed the orders on 21/07/2024 and 29/01/2019. Admittedly, the said orders have not been challenged by the plaintiffs and as such the said orders have attained finality. He further submitted that as per the provisions of Section 26(b) of the Mamlatdars Court Act, there is bar for filing of the suit and therefore the learned appellate Court has rightly stayed the effect of the order passed by the Civil Judge (J.D.) Mouda. He further submitted that right now, in view of ongoing season of the agricultural operations, the respondents/defendants being large in number should not be prevented from using the approach way from the suit field permitted by the learned appellate Court by staying the judgment of the learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Mouda. He therefore submitted that large number of party respondents being agriculturist may not be made to suffer or put to loss at the cost illegal order passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division. Therefore Mr. Bisen submitted that no case is made out by the appellants/plaintiffs for interference in the impugned order. Therefore, the instant appeal may be dismissed.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length and perusing the record placed before this Court, it is clear that the appellants/plaintiffs, initially approached the Civil Court by filing R.C.S. No.21/2019 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating way through the field of the plaintiffs. The cause of action to institute the said suit was the order dated 29/01/2019 passed by the Tahsildar in revenue proceedings. The learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Mouda vide order dated 31/08/2023 pleased to decree the suit restraining the defendants from creating way for carriage of tractor or other agricultural equipments from field bearing Survey No.121 admeasuing 4.4 HR situated at Mouza Dhamangaon, Tahsil Mouda, District Nagpur.
Dr Smt Sirpurkar submitted that since the appellants/plaintiffs are cultivating the very suit field, till the decision of appeal, the respondents/defendants be directed not to carry bullock-carts, tractors or other agricultural equipments from the disputed approach way as it would damage the standing crops. The learned appellate Court while passing the impugned order has not considered the position which was existing before the time of passing the order. The suit was decreed on 31/08/2023 whereby the respondents/defendants were restrained from creating way for carriage of tractor or other agricultural equipments from the suit field and the impugned order below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Appeal No.224/2025 is passed on 13/11/2025 thereby staying the effect, operation and execution of the judgment and decree drd. 31/08/2023, which amounts to granting final relief to the respondents/defendants. Such relief can be granted to either of the parties only after final hearing of the appeal and therefore, the impugned order, in my opinion, amounts to granting final relief which is not proper and correct.
Accordingly, without commenting upon merits of the matter, I pass the following order :
Since standing crops in the suit field are at the risk of damage, the impugned temporary injunction order dated 13/11/2025 below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Appeal No.224/2025 is hereby quashed and set aside thereby rejecting the application of the Respondents/Defendants for grant of temporary injunction.
The learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Nagpur is directed to decide the R.C.A. No.224/2025 expeditiously within a period of three months from today by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
This Court has not considered the merits of the matter and the Learned Appellate Court shall decide the Appeal on its own merits.
It is made clear that the respondents/defendants shall not use the disputed approach way for vehicles and machineries like tractor, Bullock carts, and other agricultural equipments for any purpose. Their use for approach way without using aforesaid items is permissible.
Appeal From Order is allowed in above terms.
No order as to costs.