IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR

DIVISION, SELOO.

Reg. Civil Suit No._____/2012.

PLAINTIFF:
1. Vikram s/o Dhyneshwar Ingole
Aged about 29 Years, Occ. Education

2. VISHAL s/o Dhyneshwar Ingole

Aged about 25 Years, Occ. Education

3. Surekha Wd/o Dhyneshwar Ingole

Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Household
All R/o Dhantoli, Wardha,
Tah & Dist. Wardha

4. Vaishali W/o Sudhir Gire

Aged about 35, Occ. Household,
R/o Giripeth, Wardha Dist. Wardha

5. Gulabrao Nagorao Ingole

Aged about 68, Occ.: Business
R/o Mahada Colony, Wardha

6. Krushnarao Naograo Ingole

Aged about 58, Occ. Service
R/o Jadale Layout,
Wardha Dist. Wardha

7. Sau. Chabutai Wd/o Babanrao Ingole

Aged 48 years, Occ. Household

8. Vinod Babanrao Ingole

Aged 27 years, Occ. Nothing

9. Ku. Amita S/o Babanrao Ingole

Aged 23 Years
 10. Ku. Suchita Babanrao Ingole
Aged 21 Years
All R/o Seloo Tah. Seloo, Dist. Wardha

-Versus-

DEFENDANTS: 1. Smt. Vijaya Dinkarrao Gawande

Aged 55 Years, Occu.: Household
R/o Seloo Tah. Seloo Dist. Wardha

SUIT FOR PERMANENT & MANDATORY INJUNCTION VALUED

AT `1,000/-.(CF Paid `200/-)

The Plaintiffs above named begs to submit his claim as under: -

1) That the Plaintiffs and the Defendant are resident of places shown

in cause title of the suit. The Plaintiffs and Defendant are the

residents of the places within the territorial jurisdiction of this

Hon’ble Court. The suit property is situated within the territorial

jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the instant suit is being

filed before this Hon’ble Court for proper consideration and

disposal according to law.

2) That, the defendant filed suit for partition and separate possession

in the year 2002, Vide old Civil Suit No. 206/2002, thereafter the

said suit transferred to the Seloo Court and new filing number was

allotted to it and it was 33/2008 and the said suit was decreed by

the learned Civil Judge J.D., Shri. S. Y. Lothiyapathan on 24-08-

2009 and ordered to get 1/5 share specified in the schedule of the

suit against the present plaintiff no. 5, 6 and deceased

Dhyneshwar (Plaintiff no 1 to 4 are legal heirs) & Babanrao

(Plaintiff no. 4 is wife 5 to 7 are legal heirs).

3) It is submitted that, the said order of Hon,ble Civil Court, Seloo

was challenged by the present plaintiff by moving appeal before the

 Hon’ble District Judge, Wardha vide Reg. Appeal No. 187/2009

(Gulabrao V/s Vijaya).

4) It is also submitted that, mean time the present defendant filed

case vide no. R.T.S. 64/09, Before the Tahasildar, Seloo for

Measurement as well as partition on dated 6-10-2009. It is also

submitted that in the said case the present plaintiff move an

application dated 24-12-2009 and stated that the present plaintiff

filed Appeal against the order of the Civil Judge Junior Division,

Seloo in RCS No.33/08 at Hon’ble District Court, Vide Appeal No.

187/09, and the date for appearance of present defendant is 08-

01-2010 and therefore the time may be granted to avail the remedy

given by the law or as per the principal of natural justice.

5) It is submitted that, the present defendant moved an application in

the above case on 09-04-2010 demanding that she require full

property of field survey no. 157 i.e. 0.45 HR and 1.04 HR out of

1.73 HR of field survey no. 158. On the said application there is no

reply was called by the Tahasildar, Seloo, nor such kind of any

notice given or sent to the present plaintiffs.

6) It is also submitted that, the Tahasldar without giving any chance

of hearing to the present plaintiff passed favored order as per the

application dated 09-04-2009, moved by the present defendant

stating that the out of the other field survey numbers the present

defendant get separate possession over the full property of field

survey no. 157 i.e. 0.45 HR and 1.04 HR out of 1.73 HR of field

survey no. 158 and her name would be muted as per the order

dated 15-06-2010 in the said survey number.

7) It is also submitted that, being aggrieved from said order of

Tahasildar, Seloo the present plaintiff moved an Appeal before the

Sub-Divisional Magistrate on dated 25-11-2010 vide R.A.M.N.

18/SRV 42/2010-11. In the said appeal the Order of Tahasildar

was quashed and directed to take fresh inquiry and as per the

order of Hon’ble CIvil Court, Seloo and also with respect to the

provision of law. The said order was passed on 06-01-2011.

8) It is submitted that, the present defendant challenged the said

order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 06-01-2011, and

challenged the said order before the Add. Collector, Wardha U/s

247 of MLR Code by making parties to all the present plaintiffs.

Collector, Wardha quashes the order of the Sub-Divisional

Magistrate and upheld the order of the Tahasildar, Seloo by order

dated 26-03-2012.

9) It is specifically submitted that, in R.C.S. no. 33/08 the order of

the Civil Judge Junior Division, Seloo, it is specifically mentioned

that the property mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint i.e.

Schedule of suit property, out of that after partition 1/5 share was

given to the present defendant. But the Tahasldar passed the order

in favor of present defendant and given full property of field survey

no. 157 i.e. 0.45 HR and 1.04 HR out of 1.73 HR of field survey no.

158, but neither such prayer nor such kind of order was not

passed in the RCS No. 33/2008. It is also submitted that present

defendant given any separate schedule of the Property along with

RCS No. 33/2008. This clearly had shown her maladies intention

to grab the prime and cream property out of the full property.
10) It is further specifically submitted that, the present defendant

move an application to Tahsildar, Seloo for mutation of her name

in the revenue record on the suit property on 9-4-2010. This is

very prior to the any order of the Tahasildar or Collector. Also the

present defendant not filed any Execution of decree passed in RCS

No. 33/2008 nor filed Final decree proceeding. In such situation

Collector or Tahsildar would not in position to petition or give

separate position or not give any specific property in absence of

schedule of the property, to the present defendant or any one.

11) It is also submitted that, the Tahasldar passed favored order as

per the application dated 09-04-2009, moved by the present

defendant and given separate possession over the full property of

field survey no. 157 i.e. 0.45 HR and 1.04 HR out of 1.73 HR of

field survey no. 158 and her name muted as per the order dated

15-06-2010 in the said survey number. The above mentioned step

was priory not in consideration of the Tahasildar but after giving

such application the Tahasildar act as per the application and not

given chance to present plaintiff and allotted the prime and cream

property to the present defendant.

12) It is humbly submitted that, plaintiffs came to know that the

present defendant is going to alienate the property i.e. Field survey

no. 156 and the 1.04 HR out of filed survey no. 158 by way of

transfer, sale. If the present defendant succeed in his moto then

the all plaintiffs would suffer heavy loss which is irreparable and

not count in terms of money.

13) It is submitted that, the cause of action firstly arose on 24-08-2009

i.e. after order of the C.J.J.D, Seloo then Order of Tahasildar i.e. on

15-06-2010 and thereafter 26-03-2012 and till continuing.

 14) That, for the purposes of Court fees and Jurisdiction the claim in

suit for Permanent injunction and mandatory injunction valued at

`1000/- and thus plaintiff pays a Court fee stamp of `200/-

herewith.

15) That, the plaintiff basis his suit on no documents but relies in

support of his claim as per the list and seek permission to file such

other documents as may be necessary after the pleadings of the

defendant-trust.

PRAYER: - It is therefore prayed that this Honorable Court be pleased: -

a) to restrain the defendant from transferring, executing and

registering the sale deed in respect muted property as per the order
of Tahasildar,

b) To pass a decree for Permanent and mandatory Injunction in

favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant and to restrain the
defendants permanently for not to transfer, Sell or alienate the
above said property,

C) Cost of the suit be saddled on the defendant,

D) to grant any other relief which the Court deems fit and proper may
also be awarded to the plaintiff

WARDHA.
DATED : 11-4-2012.

_________________________
Counsel for the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff.
 Verification

Verified that, the contents in Paras 1 to 15 of this plaint are true to

the facts and documents available with me. Those are true to my
personal knowledge and believed to be true.
Hence verified and signed at Wardha on 11-4-2011.

WARDHA. __________________
Plaintiff.
Dt. 11-4-2011.

AFFIDAVIT

I, Vikram S/o S/O DHYNESHWAR INGOLE, aged about 29

years, occupation Education, R/o Wardha, Tahsil &
District-WARDHA do hereby take oath and state on solemn
affirmation that :

1. The contents of this Plaint in Paras 1 to 15 are correctly

drafted by my Advocate according to my instructions and
as per documents available with me. Those are true to the
facts and circumstances.
2. The contents are read over and explained to me in
vernacular. I understood the same and admit them to be
true and believed correct.
Hence verified and signed at Wardha on 11th April 10,
2012.

__________________
Deponent.
I know and identified the deponent. He
has put his signature before me.

H.K.Chandak
Advocate.
 IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE, JUNIOR
DIVISION, SELOO.

Reg. Civil Suit No._____/2012.

PLAINTIFF:
1. Vikram s/o Dhyneshwar Ingole
Aged about 29 Years, Occ. Education

2. VISHAL s/o Dhyneshwar Ingole

Aged about 25 Years, Occ. Education

3. Surekha Wd/o Dhyneshwar Ingole

Aged about 50 Years, Occ. Household
All R/o Dhantoli, Wardha,
Tah & Dist. Wardha

4. Vaishali W/o Sudhir Gire

Aged about 35, Occ. Household,
R/o Giripeth, Wardha Dist. Wardha

5. Gulabrao Nagorao Ingole

Aged about 68, Occ.: Business
R/o Mahada Colony, Wardha

6. Krushnarao Naograo Ingole

Aged about 58, Occ. Service
R/o Jadale Layout,
Wardha Dist. Wardha

7. Sau. Chabutai Wd/o Babanrao Ingole

Aged 48 years, Occ. Household

8. Vinod Babanrao Ingole

Aged 27 years, Occ. Nothing
 9. Ku. Amita S/o Babanrao Ingole
Aged 23 Years

10. Ku. Suchita Babanrao Ingole

Aged 21 Years
All R/o Seloo Tah. Seloo, Dist. Wardha

-Versus-

DEFENDANTS: 1. Smt. Vijaya Dinkarrao Gawande

Aged 55 Years, Occu.: Household
R/o Seloo Tah. Seloo Dist. Wardha

Application U/o 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w 151 of Code of Civil

Procedure for grant of ad-interim Exparte Temporary
Injunction.

The Applicants/Plaintiffs respectfully beg to submit as under :

1) That, the applicants/plaintiffs has filed the suit for Mandatory

and permanent Injunction against the defendant. All the fact in

detailed have been elaborated and specifically mentioned in the

main suit. Only to avoid mere repeating of similar fact

applicants/plaintiffs is not reiterating the same. In fact, present

application is part and parcel of the suit, and therefore while

deciding the present application main suit may kindly be read

over.

2) That the Plaintiffs and the Defendant are resident of places

shown in cause title of the suit. The Plaintiffs and Defendant are

the residents of the places within the territorial jurisdiction of

this Hon’ble Court. The suit property is situated within the

territorial jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the instant

suit is being filed before this Hon’ble Court for proper

consideration and disposal according to law.

3) That, the defendant filed suit for partition and separate

possession in the year 2002, Vide old Civil Suit No. 206/2002,

thereafter the said suit transferred to the Seloo Court and new

filing number was allotted to it and it was 33/2008 and the said

suit was decreed by the learned Civil Judge J.D., Shri. S. Y.

Lothiyapathan on 24-08-2009 and ordered to get 1/5 share

specified in the schedule of the suit against the present plaintiff

no. 5, 6 and deceased Dhyneshwar (Plaintiff no 1 to 4 are legal

heirs) & Babanrao (Plaintiff no. 4 is wife 5 to 7 are legal heirs).

4) It is also submitted that, the present defendant filed case vide no.

R.T.S. 64/09, Before the Tahasildar, Seloo for Measurement as

well as partition on dated 6-10-2009. It is also submitted that in

the said case the present plaintiff move an application dated 24-

12-2009 and stated that the present plaintiff filed Appeal against

the order of the Civil Judge Junior Division, Seloo in RCS

No.33/08 at Hon’ble District Court, Vide Appeal No. 187/09, and

the date for appearance of present defendant is 08-01-2010 and

therefore the time may be granted to avail the remedy given by

the law or as per the principal of natural justice.

5) It is submitted that, the present defendant moved an application

in the above case on 09-04-2010 demanding that she require full

property of field survey no. 157 i.e. 0.45 HR and 1.04 HR out of

1.73 HR of field survey no. 158. On the said application there is

no reply was called by the Tahasildar, Seloo, nor such kind of

any notice given or sent to the present plaintiffs.

6) It is also submitted that, the Tahasldar without giving any

chance of hearing to the present plaintiff passed favored order as

per the application dated 09-04-2009, moved by the present

defendant stating that the out of the other field survey numbers

the present defendant get separate possession over the full

property of field survey no. 157 i.e. 0.45 HR and 1.04 HR out of

1.73 HR of field survey no. 158 and her name would be muted as

per the order dated 15-06-2010 in the said survey number.

7) It is specifically submitted that, in R.C.S. no. 33/08 the order of

the Civil Judge Junior Division, Seloo, it is specifically mentioned

that the property mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint i.e.

Schedule of suit property, out of that after partition 1/5 share

was given to the present defendant. But the Tahasldar passed the

order in favor of present defendant and given full property of field

survey no. 157 i.e. 0.45 HR and 1.04 HR out of 1.73 HR of field

survey no. 158, but neither such prayer nor such kind of order

was not passed in the RCS No. 33/2008. It is also submitted

that present defendant given any separate schedule of the

Property along with RCS No. 33/2008. This clearly had shown

her maladies intention to grab the prime and cream property out

of the full property.

8) It is humbly submitted that, plaintiffs came to know that the

present defendant is going to alienate the property i.e. Field

survey no. 156 and the 1.04 HR out of filed survey no. 158 by

way of transfer, sale. If the present defendant succeed in his

 moto then the all plaintiffs would suffer heavy loss which is

irreparable and not count in terms of money.

9) From that facts stated above it is crystal clear that there is a

prima facie case in favour of applicants/plaintiffs. As such

balance of convenience also lies in favour of plaintiffs. It is

submitted that if the defendant is not restrained then the

applicants/plaintiffs would suffer heavily irreparable loss which

cannot be compensated in terms of money at present as well as

this damage cause irreversible. It is necessary to grant ad-interim

ex-parte temporary injunction in favour of applicants/plaintiffs

against the defendant. On the contrary, if the defendant is

restrained no loss of whatsoever nature will be cost to him in the

light of above said facts and circumstances defendant be

restrained temporary from obstructing or interfering the

possession of the said suit property of applicants/plaintiffs.

Prayer : It is therefore, prayed this Hon’ble Court may kindly be

pleased to issued writ of ad-interim ex-parte temporary

injunction in favour of applicants/plaintiffs and against

the defendant thereby restraining from obstructing or

interfering the possession the plaintiff by the defendant

till the decision of the suit.

Wardha
Dated : 11.04.2012 PLAINTIFF

Counsel for Plaintiff

 AFFIDAVIT

I, Vikram S/O DHYNESHWAR INGOLE, aged about 29 years,

occupation Education, R/o Wardha, Tahsil & District-
WARDHA do hereby take oath and state on solemn affirmation
that :
1. The contents of this application in Paras 1 to 9 are
correctly drafted by my Advocate according to my instructions
and as per documents available with me. Those are true to the
facts and circumstances.
2. The contents are read over and explained to me in
vernacular. I understood the same and admit them to be true
and believed correct.
Hence verified and signed at Wardha on 11th April 10, 2012.

DEPONENT
I know and identify the above named deponent in
whose instruction. I have drafted the present suit
she has signed before me after understanding the
contents vernacularly and admitting them to be
true.

H.K.Chandak

Advocate, Wardha.