1 wp-1697-11 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1697 of 2011 Dnyaneshwar Maruti Lugade .. Petitioner Versus Ramchandra Maruti Lugade & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Umesh Mankapure for the Petitioner Mr. Girish J. Parayami for Respondent No.1 CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 9th NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. : 1 The above Petition takes exception to the order dated 19­11­2010, passed by the Learned District Judge, Sangli, by which order, the Application Exhibit­5 in Regular Civil Suit No.45 of 2009 filed by the Respondents herein came to be allowed. By the said Order, clause (3) of the operative part of the order of the Trial Court has been set aside and the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 which includes the present Petitioner who was Defendant No.1, were restrained from obstructing plaintiff from taking water to his land from the well situated in Gat No.604/5 till disposal of the suit. 2 The Respondent No.1 is the Plaintiff who has filed Regular Civil Suit 2 wp-1697-11 No.45 of 2009 for injunction simplicitor in respect of the lands mentioned in paragraph 1(a) to 1(c) of the plaint. In the said suit, an application for temporary injunction Exhibit­5 came to be filed by the Respondent No.1 which was resisted by the Petitioner herein. The said application Exhibit­5 came to be partly allowed, in so far as the land mentioned in paragraphs 1(a) to 1(b) is concerned. However, in so far as, the land mentioned in paragraph 1(c) is concerned, the Trial Court recored a finding that the said land was a self acquired property of the Petitioner herein who was the Defendant No.1 in the said suit. It is pertinent to note that the said order was not challenged by the Petitioner herein, in so far as, grant of injunction in respect of the properties mentioned in paragraphs 1(a) to 1(c) is concerned. However, the Respondent No.1 herein filed Appeal being Misc Civil Appeal No.4 of 2010 challenging the order in so far as, the finding recorded in respect of paragraph 1(c) i.e. land bearing Survey No.604/5 is concerned. 3 The First Appellate Court allowed the said Appeal inter alia on the ground that the findings to the effect that the said property mentioned in paragraph 1(c), was self acquired property could not be rendered at the interlocutory stage without the parties going to trial. The First Appellate Court, therefore, set aside the findings recorded in respect of the said Gat No.604/5 and covered by clause (3) of the operative part of the order and restrained the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 from obstructing the Plaintiff i.e the 3 wp-1697-11 Respondent No.1 from taking water to his land from the well situated in Gat No.604/5 till disposal of the suit. As indicated it is the said Order which is impugned in the present Petition. 4 Submissions and counter submissions are sought to be advanced as regards the claim of the Petitioner to the said land Gat No.604/5 as being a self acquired property vis­a­vis the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent No.1 that the said property was a joint family property and belongs to the common hotch­potch. In my view, it is not necessary to advert to the said submissions as considering the order passed by the Trial Court and the reasons mentioned for setting aside the findings recorded in so far as, the property being self acquired property is concerned, the said reasons are unexceptional and do not merit interference in the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It appears that the Respondent No.1 has been drawing water from the well in Gat No.604/5, during the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court and, therefore, the First Appellate Court after setting aside the finding recorded by the Trial Court as regards the said property being a self acquired property of the Defendant No.1 has restrained the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 from obstructing the plaintiff from taking water to his land from the well situated in Gat No.604/5 till disposal of the suit. 5 However, in my view, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper to expedite the hearing of the said 4 wp-1697-11 Regular Civil Suit No.45 of 2009. The Trial Court is, therefore, directed to hear and decide the said Regular Civil Suit No.45 of 2009 by 31­10­2012. The order passed by the First Appellate Court permitting the Respondent No.1 to draw water from the well in Gat No.604/5 will operate till the disposal of the suit as directed by the First Appellate Court. 6 With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Needless to state that considering the need to conserve water in view of the scarcity in the area in question, the Respondent No.1 would co­ operate with the Defendants in the matter of drawing water from the well. 7 Needless to state that the Trial Court would decide the suit on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the earlier orders as well as the instant order. (R.M.SAVANT, J. )