Bombay High Court
Tahazeb Khan Mansab Khan Pathan vs Chief Officer Municipal Council Pathri on 18 December, 2025
WP 15365/25
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
964 WRIT PETITION NO. 15365 OF 2025
TAHAZEB KHAN MANSAB KHAN PATHAN
VERSUS
CHIEF OFFICER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PATHRI
...
Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Kulkarni Mukul S.
...
CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.
Dated : December 18, 2025 PER COURT :- 1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner challenges the impugned judgment and order dated 11.12.2025 passed by the learned District Judge-2, Parbhani in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 46/024, by which the order passed below Exh. 5 dated 24.5.2024 in RCS No. 58/2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pathri is quashed and set aside. The learned trial court vide order dated 24.4.2024 has temporarily restrained the defendant/respondent from causing any obstruction to the peaceful possession of petitioner over the suit property.
3. The petitioner has filed simplicitor suit for perpetual injunction and declaration that notice issued by the defendant/Municipal Corporation to the plaintiff dated 13.5.2024 be declared as illegal, null and void and the Municipal Corporation could not dispossess the plaintiff from house No. 5, new house No. 665 adm. 15 x 12 meter without following due process of law. It is the case of the plaintiff that he is the owner of new house No. 665 and that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed. However, certain complaints were filed in respect of WP 15365/25 2 construction made by the plaintiff over the suit property and as such, the Municipal Corporation has issued such notice and as such, the petitioner has filed RCS No. 58/2024.
4. In the civil suit, misc. application was filed by the petitioner for restraining the defendant from causing any obstruction over the peaceful possession over the suit property. The learned trial Court has considered the two reports one is of the Chief Officer dated 13.5.2024 which is in favour of the petitioner and another is of the City Engineer dated 3.4.2024 which is partly against the petitioner and has granted injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing the peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The same is challenged by the Municipal Corporation before the appellate Court. The appellate court has observed that there are various complaints made against the petitioner and that has to be taken into consideration. Considering the report of City Engineer and considering that there was no construction permission, the appellate court has quashed and set aside the order of the trial court and has dismissed Exh. 5 temporary injunction application.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is well settled principle of law that while setting aside the injunction order of the trial Court, the appellate court has not followed the principles of law relating to the injunction with the discretionary order of injunction and while reversing the injunction order. The learned counsel submits that primarily the report of Chief Officer dated 13.4.2024 is not at all taken in to consideration by the appellate court where in it is observed that the construction of the petitioner on the suit property is of tin shed for covering boundaries. So also he submits that the matter is politically WP 15365/25 3 motivated and action is initiated by the Municipal Corporation based on the various complaints made by the rival group. He also submits that tin shed does not require any construction permission and temporary construction is within the suit plot. He submits that there is no structure erected, but tin shed of compound wall is made to protect the boundaries of the plot. The learned counsel submits that construction of tin shed is not on the road and the same is observed by the Chief Officer in it's report dated 13.4.2024. The learned counsel submits that the prima facie findings recorded by the trial court ought not to have been upset by the appellate court and the discretionary order cannot be interfered.
6. Considered his submissions. Perused the report of Chief Officer dated 13.4.2024 which states that boundary of tin shed is made over the suit property. In view of the above report of Chief Officer and reasons given by the trial Court, I deem it appropriate to stay the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, Parbhani dated 11.12.2025 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 46/2024.
7. In view of the above, issue notice to the respondent, returnable on 21.1.2026.
8. In the meanwhile, there shall be ad-interim stay to the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge, Parbhani dated 11.12.2025 in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 46/2024.
( ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ) ssc/