: 1 : USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.235 OF 2009 Grampanchayat, Bachani through Gramsevak .. Appellants V/s. Bajirao Maruti Kumbhar & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. P.D. Dalvi for the appellants Mr. Prashant P. Jadhav for the respondents ..... CORAM : R.Y. GANOO, J. DATE : 1st JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The respondents instituted suit against the present appellant so as to seek an order from the Court that respondents should not be dispossessed from the property in question save and except by due process of law. The said suit came to be filed in the Court of IInd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur being Regular Civil Suit No.2055 of 2000. The said suit came to be decided by judgment and decree dated 13 th March, 2007 and that the learned Judge issued injunction restraining the present appellants from : 2 : interfering with the possession of the respondents save and except by due process of law. Against that, appeal came to be filed in the District Court being Regular Civil Appeal No.113 of 2007 by the present appellant. Learned 1 st Ad-hoc District Judge, Kolhapur by his judgment and decree dated 14 th January, 2009 dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the decree passed by learned Civil Judge against which this second appeal is filed. 2. Learned advocate Mr. Dalvi before this Court submitted that the institution of the suit by the respondent without issuing notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was bad in law and that point had not been considered by the Courts below. 3. It is to be noted that the appellants had promised to grant the land in question to respondents. That would go to show that the respondents are in possession of suit land for a substantially long time. If this be so, the State must proceed against the respondents in accordance with the provisions of law. : 3 : 4. As the mater was called out, learned advocate Mr. Jadhav appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the respondents shall give the statutory notice to the appellants as also the State of Maharashtra in accordance with the provisions of Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code and then if thought fit, institute appropriate proceedings. In my view, this statement made across the bar by learned advocate Mr. Jadhav can be accepted and to that extent relief will have to be given to the respondents. In my view, interest of justice require that the second appeal can be disposed of by recording the statement of the respondents and for some time, the possession of the respondents is required to be protected. In my view, this action would meet the ends of justice with reference to appellants as well as the respondents. In view of this, second appeal is disposed of by passing following order. ORDER . Statement made by learned advocate Mr. Jadhav appearing on behalf of respondents that respondents will issue Notice under Section 80 of Civil Procedure Code to the appellants as well as certain other : 4 : authorities including the State of Maharashtra is accepted. . The respondents to issue said Notice on or before 31 st July, 2009. Till 9 th October, 2009, the appellants shall not disturb the possession of respondents. Thereafter, if the respondents are interested in protecting their possession, the respondents will have to institute appropriate proceedings in the appropriate forum. Subject to the above order above the judgment and decree passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolhapur dated 13 th March, 2007 is set aside. . No views are expressed on the merits of the matter and the appellant and respondents are free to raise all contentions as and when the proceeding is filed by the respondents or the appellant. Second appeal is disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs. (R.Y. Ganoo, J.)