Hemant Vasant Jagtap vs Haji Abdul Malik Haji Yunusisa

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Hemant Vasant Jagtap – Appellant
Versus
Haji Abdul Malik Haji Yunusisa – Respondent

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.M. Haridas
For the Respondents: Anilkumar Patil, V.S. Nimbalkar

Table of Content
1. petitioners sought intervention due to threats while cultivating land. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. defendant claimed no possession, arguing plaintiffs initiated violence. (Para 5 , 11 , 12)
3. court recognized injunction order violations, affirming plaintiffs' lawful possession. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)
4. court justified issuing police protection for enforcing injunction under emergency. (Para 16 , 18)
5. final order granted police protection based on established facts and violations. (Para 19)

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule, returnable forthwith. With the consent of the Learned Counsels for the parties, called out for final hearing.

2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated June 30, 2022 passed by the 4th Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Malegaon rejecting petitioners’ application for providing police protection to assist them in cultivating the suit land in pursuance of the order of interim injunction passed in his favour.

3. The suit is filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs seeking permanent injunction against the defendants from interfering in their possession over the suit property. In application filed for temporary injunction, the trial Court was pleased to pass th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

BOMBAY HIGH COURTSANDEEP V. MARNE, JHemant Vasant Jagtap – AppellantVersusHaji Abdul Malik Haji Yunusisa – Respondent

BOMBAY HIGH COURT
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J
Hemant Vasant Jagtap – Appellant
Versus
Haji Abdul Malik Haji Yunusisa – Respondent