Disposed

Pandharinath Amrutrao Jadhav and Ors. v. Dattatraya Kashinath and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Dec 2007WP/3334/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against the refusal of an interim stay, the Court continued an earlier order halting execution of a possession decree. It also directed the lower appellate court to dispose of the appeal within three months by virtue of a senior citizen party to the litigation.

What did the court decide?

The interim order preventing execution of the decree for possession ordered on 26th April 2007 is continued till the disposal of the appeal.

Pandharinath Amrutrao Jadhav and Ors. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3334 OF 2007

¶5

Pandharinath A. Jadhav.. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Dattatraya Kashinath Nikam & Ors.. Respondents

¶8

Mr.K.S.Patil for petitioner

¶9

Ms.Jyoti Chavan for respondent No.1.

¶10

CORAM :S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
DATE:3rd December 2007

¶11

P.C.

¶12

.This petition is directed against an
order of the lower appellate court refusing to
grant any interim stay during the pendency of the
appeal which is preferred by the present

¶13

¶14

petitioner. The present petitioner has suffered
a decree of the Trial Court for declaration and
possession. In such circumstances, while
challenging that decree an application was made
for interim stay.

¶15

2.That having beenrejected present

¶16

petition was filed.

¶17

3.While issuing notice to the respondents -
original plaintiffs this court had directed that
decree for possession shall not be executed. On
26th April 2007 this order was passed.

¶18

4.To my mind, instead of going into the
rival contentions and prejudicing case of parties
in the pending appeal, interest of justice would
be sub-served if the order passed by this Court
on 26th April 2007 is continued till hearing and
final disposal of the appeal pending before the
Dist.Court. Considering the fact that one of the

¶19

¶20

parties to the litigation is senior citizen,
interest of justice would be sub-served if the
lower appellate court takes up the matter for
expeditious disposal and endeavours to dispose of
the same within three months from the date of
receipt of this order. Petition disposed of. No
costs.

¶21

(S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)

Pandharinath Amrutrao Jadhav and Ors. v. Dattatraya Kashinath and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pandharinath Amrutrao Jadhav and Ors. v. Dattatraya Kashinath 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

M/S. Hanil Era Textiles Ltd. Vs M/S. Dave Shah and Co. (Switch Gear) Pvt.Ltd.

Bheema Martand Borhade Vs Yeshodabai Martand Borhade (Decd.)by Heirs

Jawahar Nagar Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs Pratapprai Trimbaklal Mehta and Ors.

Mrunalini Himanshu Chitnis Vs Himanshu Chandrakant Chitnis

Dadu Goga Shinde Vs Prakash Gangadhar Gamane and Anr.

Mahendra Bhaskar Mhatre Vs Uday Ganpat Patil