Dismissed

Babubai Chaintaman Galande (Decd.)by Lrs.- Kamalakar Chintaman Galande and Anr. v. Maruti Manaji Barate and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Mar 2009WP/3131/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a writ petition challenging an order issuing notice in an execution proceeding. The court declined jurisdiction, holding the grievance can be addressed by the executing court itself at the preliminary decree stage.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and civil application are dismissed as the issue falls within the domain of the executing court.

Babubai Chaintaman Galande (Decd.)by Lrs.- Kamalakar… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 WRIT PETITION NO.3131 OF 2009

¶5

 WITH

¶6

 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.738 OF 2009

¶7

 Sou.Babubai C. Galande(deceased)
 by her LRs. Shri Kamalakar

¶8

 C. Galande & Anr. ..Petitioners.

¶9

 V/s.

¶10

 Shri Maruti Manaji Barate & ors. ..Respondents

¶11

 Mr.Avinash Joshi for Petitioners.

¶12

 CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J

¶13

 DATE : MARCH 30, 2009.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

 1. None appears. Dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶16

 2. Later on Mr.Joshi, advocate for Petitioners
 appeared and mentioned the matter for restoration of
 the Petition as well as Civil Application as he was
 held up in some other court. For the reasons
 mentioned across the bar, request for recalling the
 order passed in morning session is accepted.
 Accordingly, Petition as well as Civil Application
 are restored to the file to its original number and
 heard immediately.

¶17

 3. The Order which is impugned in this Petition

¶18

¶19

 is only of issuing notice on the subject Application
 being Regular Darkhast No.53 of 2008 dated 31st
 March, 2008. The grievance of the Petitioners that
 it was not necessary to issue notice as the matter
 was only at the stage of preliminary decree is a
 matter, which can be addressed by the Executing Court
 itself. Hence no interference in exercise of writ
 jurisdiction is warranted. Darkhast Application
 shall proceed in accordance with the law. All
 questions to be argued in that proceedings are left

¶20

 open, to be decided on its own merits.

¶21

 4. Petition disposed of on the above terms.

¶22

 5. In view of the disposal of the Writ Petition,
 nothing survives for consideration in the Civil
 Application. The same is disposed of accordingly.

¶23

(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Babubai Chaintaman Galande (Decd.)by Lrs.- Kamalakar Chintaman Galande and Anr. v. Maruti Manaji Barate and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babubai Chaintaman Galande (Decd.)by Lrs.- Kamalakar Chintaman Galande and Anr. v. Maruti Manaji Barate 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

Rupal Mayur Doshi Vs Mayur Jaswantray Doshi

Sakharam Madhavrao Bendbhar and Ors. Vs Janabai Moreshwar Mungase (Decd.)by Lrs. - Saraswati Popatrao Mungase and Ors.

Shrimant Ganpati Gulve (Decd.)by Lrs.- Rukminibai Shrimant Gulve and Ors., Vs Tanabai Gyandev Gulve (Decd.)- Mohan Gyandev Gulve and Ors.

Mahavir Feeds Vs M/S. Jivraj Raoji Gandhi

Shri Satish Bhatnagar and Ors. Vs Vinod Rajkumar Bhatanagar and Ors.

Ramkrishna Gajanan Patil Vs Bhaskar Pillai and Anr.