Dismissed

Ganpat Ramchandra Choudhari (Decd) by Lrs Nivrutti Ganpat Choudhari and Ors. v. Raju Shivram Jundre and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Aug 2006SA/15/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court considered an appeal where appellants sought more time to vacate suit premises and threatened not to press the appeal on merits. The Court dismissed the appeal as not pressed and suspended execution of the possession decree until October 30, 2010, contingent on an undertaking to vacate.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as not pressed; execution of possession decree stayed till October 30, 2010, subject to undertaking to vacate.

Ganpat Ramchandra Choudhari (Decd) by Lrs Nivrutti… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2006)

¶1

The

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO. 15 OF 2006.

¶5

Ganpat Ramchandra Choudhari (since deceased through LRs.) Nivruti Ganpat Choudhari & ors. Versus.

¶6

Rajyu Shivram Jundre & others.

¶7

... Appellants.

¶8

... Respondents.

¶9

Shri R.V.More for the Appellants.

¶10

Shri Kishore Patil for the Respondents Nos.1 to 7.

¶11

CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J.

¶12

DATED : 14th August, 2006.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1.		Heard the A	dvocates appear	ing for the part	ies.
After	arguing	the	appeal	on merits,	Shri	More,	the
learned	Counsel	for	the Ap	pellants	states that	if	longer
time	to	vacate	the suit	premises	is grant	ed	considering
the	long	standing	possession	of the	Appellants,	he	has
instructions	from	the	Appellants	not	to press	the	Appeal
on	merits.	The	learned	Counsel	for the		Respondents

¶15

states that only by way of indulgence maximum time of

¶16

three years may be granted to vacate the suit premises.

¶17

2.	I have consi	dered	the sub	missions.
Appella	nts have stated	that	if	longer	time is	granted	to
vacate	the suit premis	es,	they	will	not press	the	Appeal
on	merits. Consideri	ng	the	fact	that the	Appellants	are
in	possession of the	s	uit	property	for fairly	long	time,

¶18

longer time to vacate deserves to be granted subject to

¶19

the Appellants filing usual undertaking in this Court.

¶20

: 2 :

¶21

3. Hence the following order is passed:

¶22

i) Second Appeal is dismissed as not pressed.

¶23

ii)	Decree	for	possession shall not b	e exec	uted	till
	30th	Octobe	r 2010 subject to	the	Ap	pellants
	filing	an	undertaking in this Court	wit	hin	a
	period	of	3 weeks from today	stating		therein
	that	they	will vacate the suit	premises		within
	the	aforesa	id time fixed by this	Court	and	will
	hand	over	vacant and peaceful	possession		thereof
	to	the	original Plaintiffs and will	not		part
	with poss party.	ession there	of in favour of any third
iii)	If	the	undertaking as aforesaid is	not	filed	by
	the	Appella	nts within the stipulated	tim	e	of
	three wee become e	ks, the dec xecutable fo	ree for possession will rthwith.
iv)	The parti this order.	es to act on	an authenticated copy of

¶24

Judge.

Ganpat Ramchandra Choudhari (Decd) by Lrs Nivrutti Ganpat Choudhari and Ors. v. Raju Shivram Jundre and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganpat Ramchandra Choudhari (Decd) by Lrs Nivrutti Ganpat Choudhari and Ors. v. Raju Shivram Jundre and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Ramarao Changdev Bhosale and Anr.

Purshottam Nanji Tank Vs Municipal Corporation for Gr. Bombay

Raubai Pandurang Jadhav and Ors. Vs Bajirao Devaram Jadhav

Kokan Railway Forp Limited Vs Bhiku Tukaram Bharati and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra . Vs Kashiram Dehu Kadam .

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kashiram Dehu Kadam