1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3160 OF 2010 Parasmal Pukhraji Ostwal -: VERSUS :- Wasudeo Udhav Kumbhare and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : AUGUST 26, 2010. Heard Shri J.B. Kasat, learned Counsel for petitioner and Shri S.M. Hande, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 6. Shri Kasat, learned counsel states that the impugned order dated 17.08.2009 needs to be quashed and set aside, as the fact that service has not been effected in accordance with law, has not been properly evaluated. According to him, till today issues have not been framed and order of temporary injunction is operating in favour of respondents / plaintiffs. Shri Hande, learned Counsel on the other 2 hand relies upon the impugned order to show that it is wife of petitioner who disclosed that the petitioner had gone to Balaghat and hence in presence of witnesses summon was pasted. He further states that there is no question of identity of building, because Peri Building is well known structure in Hinganghat town. With the assistance of both the learned counsel I have perused the impugned order as also the application. The application as filed does not specifically contain a stand that notice was never pasted on the residential house. The application however shows that according to petitioner he got knowledge on 01.07.2009 when plaintiff approached him in his field and informed about temporary injunction. In this situation, as suit is for permanent injunction and in-relation to agricultural field, interest of justice demands that an opportunity should be given to petitioner. The suit is pending since 2008 and temporary injunction is operating in favour of the respondents and till date issues are not framed hence, the petitioner is permitted to participate in those 3 proceeding by filing appropriate written statement within a period of 6 weeks from today. However, the same is subject to payment of costs of Rs. 3000/- by the petitioner to respondent before the trial Court in the meanwhile. The amount of costs be deposited in Trial Court by 13.09.2010. Subject to such deposit, the impugned order dated 17.08.2009 passed below Exh.90 in Regular Civil Suit No.100/2008 is quashed and set aside. If the cost is so deposited, trial Court to permit the plaintiff to withdraw it and shall also permit the petitioner to file his written statement by 11.10.2010. After If the written statement is filed, trial Court to proceed further with the trial of the suit on merits, in accordance with law. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. JUDGE Rgd.