High Court Civil Appellate Jurisdiction quashed impugned order dismissing application to frame additional issues for vagueness and directed re-hearing.
Impugned order quashed; application Exhibit-18 restored to Trial Court to be decided afresh.
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.
1
mst
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10155 OF 2009
Late Ravindra R. Sabnis, since deceased by LRs. versus Rangrao Dadu Patil and another
Petitioners
Respondents
Mr.S.C.Prabhu i/by N.V.Bandiwadekar for petitioners. Mr.Amit B. Borkar for respondent nos.1 and 2.
CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.
DATE : 21st April 2010
PC :
2
parties I find that the impugned order is vague. There is no specific direction issued that the issues as suggested should be framed. The impugned order seem to suggest that the issue of jurisdiction will have to be framed and tried as a preliminary issue. However, there is no specific direction for framing an issue of tenancy as prayed by the respondents. Whether the issue of tenancy based on a plea of tenancy arises is a question which will have to be considered by the Trial Court in accordance with the settled position of law. It appears to me that the application at Exhibit-18 has not been decided on merits. Therefore, by setting aside the impugned order, the application will have to be directed to be reheard.
A) The impugned order dated 28th August 2008 is quashed and set aside and application at Exhibit-18 is restored to the file of Trial Court; B) The application at Exhibit-18 shall be decided afresh in accordance with law after hearing the parties. The application shall be decided expeditiously;
C) All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
(A.S.OKA, J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the lower court order disposing of the application to frame additional issues was vague and required rehearing.
Late Ravindra R. Sabnis, LRs.
Rangrao Dadu Patil
A.S. Oka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
