1 wp 5010.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5010 OF 2011 1. Omprakash Shamkishorji Tiwari, Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Phol Bazar, Jalna. 2. Omprakash Bhawarlalji Saraswat, Age : 68 Years, Occu. : Service, R/o New Bazar, Jalna. 3. Ramkishan Jagannathji Khandelwal, Age : 55 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o. R. P. Road, Jalna. 4. Ramesh S/o Dwarkadasji Sharma, Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Nath Baba Galli, New Jalna. 5. Bansilal Nandramji Goud, Age : 60 Years, Occu. : Business, R/o Beside Amarchayya Talkies, Jalna. .. Petitioners Versus 1. Sou. Sarla W/o Vijay Kumar Bharuka, Age : 78 Years, Occu. : Household, R/o Kabadi Mohalla, Jalna, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. 2 wp 5010.11 2. Municipal Council, Jalna, Through Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Jalna. .. Respondents Shri A. N. Nagargoje, Advocate for Petitioners. Shri A. S. Bajaj, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1. Shri S. D. Hiwarekar, Advocate for the Respondent No. 2. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 18TH AUGUST, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2. The present petitioners are the original defendant Nos. 1 to 5. The present respondent No. 1/original plaintiff initially had filed a suit for simplicitor injunction and after lay out was revised the plaintiff also sought relief of declaration. The plaintiff filed an application for temporary injunction which came to be rejected. Aggrieved thereby the plaintiff filed an appeal before the District Court. The District Court allowed the appeal and clamped injunction against the defendant Nos. 1 to 5. So also clamped injunction against the defendant No. 6 from making any attempt to acquire the suit plot without due process of law and further order was also passed. 3 wp 5010.11 3. Shri Nagargoje, the learned counsel for petitioners submits that the advocate shown in the clause title as an advocate for defendant Nos. 1 to 5 was not engaged by them. The petitioners had engaged another lawyer and the order has been passed without hearing the petitioners. According to Shri Nagargoje, the learned counsel, the Trial Court had rejected the application for injunction. Shri Nagargoje, has also canvased other points. 4. I have heard Shri Bajaj, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Shri Hiwarekar, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. 5. It appears that the petitioners or their advocate did not remain present. It is not disputed that the name of the advocate shown in the clause title as the advocate of petitioners is wrongly shown. Be that as it may, the fact remains that while allowing the appeal the petitioners were not heard. 6. In view of the above, without going through the merits of the matter, I set aside the order passed by the District Court only on the ground that the petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing, keeping all points open. 4 wp 5010.11 7. In the result I pass the following order. O R D E R a. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. b. The parties are relegated before the District Court, who shall decide the Misc. C. A. No. 130/2010 afresh after giving opportunity to all the parties. c. Till the decision in Misc. C. A. No. 130/2010 the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the possession and the lay out. d. It is made clear that I have not observed anything on the merits of the matter. e. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Aug. 11