This High Court disposed of writ petitions challenging the rejection of a review application. The writ court held that the impugned order admitting a challenge to a consensual hearing is not illegal and warrants no interference.
Writ petitions summarily dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 6863 OF 2007
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6857 OF 2007
Jayesh D.Jhaveri (HUF).... Petitioner
versus
The Secretary, Khusman CHS Ltd. ...... Respondent.
Shri U.R. Mankapure for the petitioner.
CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED; 18TH OCTOBER, 2007
P.C.;
1. The present petitioner is the member of the
respondent housing society. The petitioner filed a
dispute and claimed certain sum of money from the
society and the society also filed a dispute against
the petitioner and claimed the amount towards the
petitioner’s contribution for carrying out the repairs
and outgoings. The Co-operative Court by a common
award has disposed of both the disputes. The dispute
filed by the petitioner came to be rejected whereas
the dispute filed by the society has been partly
allowed and the petitioner has been directed to pay a
sum of Rs. 97,199/- together with interest at the
rate of 12% with effect from 1-9-2002 which comes to
Rs.1,44,398/-. Aggrieved by the award passed by the
Co-operative court in both the suits, two appeals came
to be preferred before the Co-operative Appellate
Court. In the appeals the appellants filed stay
application seeking stay of the money decree. Record
reveals that the Appellate court, by consent of the
respective Advocates, heard the Appeals on merit and
disposed ofthe same. The Appeals filed by the
petitioner came to be dismissed. Thereafter the
petitioner filed a Review application making wild
allegations against the concerned Judge so also the
lawyer. The grievance in the Review application was
that the appeals were disposed of without calling for
the record and without granting proper opportunity to
the petitioner of being heard in the matter. The
impugned order observes that as both the parties found
it convenient, they agreed and argued the appeal and
the appeals thus came to be disposed of. There is
nothing on record to suggest that the Appellate Court
proceeded to hear the main matter without consent of
the concerned advocates, as contended. The impugned
order observes that as both the advocates agreed for
decision of the appeal, and as only a limited question
was involved they argued the matter, and, thus the
Appellate Court decided the Appeals. The Review
application has been rejected after holding that there
is no error apparent on the face of the record so far
as the Appellate judgment is concerned. In the
present petition only the order passed in Review
application dated 11-9-2006 is challenged.
2. Perused the order. The same cannot be said to be
illegal warranting any interference in exercise of
writ jurisdiction. Hence writ petitions are summarily
dismissed.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the order rejecting the review application admitting a challenge to a consensual hearing is maintainable in writ jurisdiction.
Jayesh D. Jhaveri (HUF)
The Secretary, Khusman CHS Ltd.
A.P. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court