1 wp-4494-10 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4494 of 2010 Dinkar Shamrao Warangade .. Petitioner Versus Mahesh Machindra Kangane .. Respondent Ms N.A.Kanhurkar i/b Mr. U.B.Nighot for the Petitioner Mr. Rajesh Parab i/b Mr. B.S.Sutar for the Respondent CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 15th NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. : 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 23-1-2010 passed by the Learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Pune, by which order, an application exhibit-14 filed by the Petitioner herein, who is the Defendant to the said Regular Civil Suit No.96 of 2008 filed by the Respondent herein came to be rejected. 2 The Respondent has filed the suit claiming the right of way through 3 ft. space for road on northern and southern sides of the plot owned by the Defendant Nos.3 and 4. In the said suit the instant application Exhibit-14 came to be filed invoking Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC, on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation and also on the ground that 2 wp-4494-10 the suit has not been properly valued. In so far as, the first objection is concerned, that is the bar of limitation, the Trial Court has held that it is only on 10-5-2008, when the Plaintiff threatened the Defendant that he has no right in the suit property, in view of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.177 of 1995, that the cause of action for filing the suit in question arose. In the light of the said fact, the Trial Court held that the suit was within limitation. 3 In so far as, the valuation of the suit was concerned, the Trial Court in the light of the fact that the Petitioner was claiming ownership right of way through 3 ft. passage towards northern and southern side and in respect of which the Defendants had only easementary right in view of the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.177of 1995 and also considering the fact that the property, wherein the passage claimed was an agricultural property, held that the suit has been properly valued. In so far as, right of way is concerned, the Plaintiff has based his case on the Judgment and Order dated 30-11-2000 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 177 of 1995, filed by the Respondent herein. In the said suit an issue came to be framed to the following effect: “Whether it was agreed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants to have 3 feet road each on northern and southern sides ?” The said issue was answered in the affirmative and the Trial Court in the said order recorded a finding that the Plaintiff and the Defendant 3 wp-4494-10 Nos.2 and 3 agreed to keep 3ft road on the northern and southern sides of their property and it is binding on the purchasers i.e. Defendant Nos.4 & 5 to the said suit, the Plaintiff i.e. Respondent herein claims through Defendant No.5. 4 Having considered the reasons for rejecting the objections raised vide application Exhibit-14, in my view, the said reasons are unexceptionable in the context of the said objections. In that view of the matter, no case for interdiction is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)