Digitally signed by PRASHANT

2024:BHC-OP V RR I AS LA NAS ESH:A1NT0V R DI A a2L tNA eE :S60-DB 10APPL-16253-23=9-7.DOC

2024.07.12 19:46:27 +0530 pvr/psv/vsa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION (L) No.16819 OF 2023 IN APPEAL (L) NO. 16253 OF 2023 WITH APPEAL (L) NO.16253 OF 2023 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2261 OF 2020 Equus Stud Pvt. Ltd. ...Appellant Versus Dharmil A. Bodani & Ors. …Respondents AND APPEAL (L.) NO.17418 OF 2023 IN INTERIM APPLICATION NO.2261 OF 2020 Dharmil A. Bodani ...Appellant Versus Equus Stud Pvt. Ltd. ...Respondent _______

Mr. Rahul Narichania, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddanth Chabbria i/b. Uma Kshirsagar Wagle and Simran Wagle for Appellant in APPL No. 16253/23.

Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mehta, Ms. Jigisha Vadodaria ib/ Negandhi Shah and Himayatullah for Respondent in APPL No. 16253/23.

Mr. Ashish Kamat, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Kunal Mehta, Ms. Jigisha Vadodaria i/b. Negandhi Shah and Himayatullah for Appellant in APPL No. 17418/23.

________

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ.

RESERVED ON: 24 JUNE 2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 11 JULY 2024.

JUDGMENT (Per G. S. Kulkarni, J.):

1. We have heard learned Senior Counsel for the parties on this Interim Application [I.A.(L) No.16819 of 2023] which has prayed for stay of an order dated 5 June 2023 (impugned order) passed by the learned Single Judge on Interim Application No.2261 of 2020 in Suit No.924 of 2001, filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (referred as “plaintiffs”) as assailed in the appeal in question.

2. The appellant “who is not a party to the suit”, has prayed for stay of the impugned order primarily on two grounds, firstly that this Court trying the Civil Suit in question instituted on the Original Side of this Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to pass an order injuncting the appellant, so as to permit the plaintiffs to use the appellant’s land situated at Village Shirgaon, Taluka Maval, District Pune, for an access to the plaintiffs’ adjoining land. It is contended that, thus, the High Court had no jurisdiction on its original side to pass any orders in relation to the cause of action being asserted against the appellant which has arisen at Village Shirgaon, Taluka Maval, in Pune district where the land in question and subject matter of the impugned order granting temporary injunction, is situated. The second ground of assail is to the effect that an order granting temporary injunction could not have been passed against the appellant “who is not a party” to the suit.

3. To appreciate the rival contentions, at the outset, it would be necessary to note the operative part of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge against the appellant (in which the appellant is described as respondent) which reads thus:-

“ORDER (I) The interim application stands partly allowed.

(II) The respondent shall not restrain the Court Receiver and/or the applicants from using the subject road to access the subject Stud Farm either by itself or through its employees, servants and agents, in any manner whatsoever.

(III) The respondent shall ensure that the gate(s) placed on the subject road are open whenever the Court Receiver and/or the applicants use the subject road to access the subject Stud Farm.

(IV) The respondent shall remove the “Y” shaped angles fixed on the fence, protruding on the subject road within four weeks from today.

(V) The contempt petition stands dismissed.

(VI) It is hereby made clear that the parties are at liberty to agitate their claims over the road, as regards proprietary title thereto as well as the right of user thereof, in an appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum and such proceedings, if instituted, be decided on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove, which are confined to the determination of the instant application and petition.

(VI) Costs in cause.

(VII) In view of disposal of the application an