1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5635/2010. (Hashmoddin Shabuddin Shaikh Vs. Afzal Papa Pathan and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.VS Undre, Adv. for petitioner; Mr.BS Kudale, Adv. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 8. ___ CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 30 th September, 2010. ... 1) Heard finally by consent of parties. 2) Grant of injunction in favour of the plaintiff by the learned II Jt.Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kallam, (now pending before the learned Judge at Washim being RCS No.259/2007 and new No. is 417/2008) was questioned by the defendant before the learned Principal District Judge Osmanabad in Misc.Civil Appeal No. 30 of 2008. 3) The learned Principal District Judge, Osmanabad, by order dated 7th April, 2010, rejected the application (Exhibit-11) moved before him and simultaneously rejected the temporary injunction order dated 17.8.2007 which was confirmed on 13.12.2007. Hence, present writ by the plaintiff. 2 4) Learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, while clamping the injunction, has given reference to the affidavit of Vasant Kadam (Exhibit-61), who has on behalf of the plaintiff carried the activities of digging the well and the plaintiff has also produced a document at Exhibit-57, having purchased the requisite material for fetching water from the well with the help of electric pump, motor and pipeline from one Vishwanath Ganpat Pandhare. A mutation entry was also effected, showing the common rights in the well between the plaintiff and Afzal Pathan to the extent of 50%. The learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, by order dated 13.12.2007 injuncted the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff from fetching 50% of water for the land Gut No.397 from the well situate in Gut No. 391. 5) Though I find that there could not be an injunction against a co-owner, however, considering the fact situation, equal rights to fetch the water from the well erected by the plaintiff, could be prima facie seen, the parties will carry and continue with the same arrangement of fetching 50% water to their respective fields till disposal of the suit. By such arrangement, the rights of either the plaintiff or the defendants are not 3 finalized by this Court. This is purely an interim arrangement to avoid any mishap to the plaintiff and defendants and also to have smooth agricultural operations between both the litigants. 6) The learned Judge, seized with the matter, shall ensure to complete the trial within a period of twelve months from receiving a writ. Both the parties shall not seek unreasonable and unnecessary accommodation/adjournments from the learned Judge as one of parties is apparently a senior citizen. 7) Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/