1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2933 OF 2009 Daulatrao s/o Laxmanrao Nilwarn, Age: 60 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Nilvarna Takli, Tq. Manwath, District Parbhani and others. .. Petitioners Versus Chandrakant s/o Suryakant Nilwarn, Age: 40 years, Occ: Service, R/o. Nilvarna Takli, Tq. Manwath, District Parbhani and another. .. Respondents ... Mr. V.P. Kadam, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. M.P. Kale, Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 10TH AUGUST, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. Present Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the 2 original plaintiffs, challenging the order dated 08-04-2008 passed by the District Judge-3 Parbhani in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 69/2008. 3. The petitioners - original plaintiffs filed suit for injunction, in which they preferred application below Exhibit-5 for temporary injunction, which was allowed by the trial Court. It is admitted fact that the Block No. 166, 173 and 174 are owned by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the trial Court below Exhibit-5, respondents - original defendants preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 69/2008 and same was allowed. 4. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submit that the respondents are using foot way as cart way from their field Block NO. 166, 173 and 174. 5. At the time of allowing Misc. Civil Appeal, the appellate Court mainly relied on the 3 letter issued by T.I.L.R. Parbhani, which shows that boundary line in the village map as path way admeasuring 8.26 ft. i. e. 2.52 meters. Same can be used as bullock carts also. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents also pointed out that the Tahasildar in his order dated 24-04-2008 specifically observed that the Public Works Department already carried out survey and sanctioned the said road as cart way. 6. In any case, the suit filed by the petitioners is pending for hearing and final disposal and therefore, it is not proper to set aside the impugned order dated 08-04-2008 passed by the District Judge-3 parbhani in M.C.A. No. 69/2008. Not only that, the Public Works Department also carried out survey and sanctioned plan for the development of the said road. 4 7. Considering these facts, Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. [ K.K. TATED, J.] sut/AUG09/wp2933.09