Partly allowed

Bapu Krishna Koli v. Ashok Dattatraya Patil

Bombay HC20 Apr 2010WP/4265/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a writ petition to restore an additional issue in a money suit because an appeal challenging an earlier order rejecting the petitioner's status as a debtor under the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act was pending. The court also directed expedited hearings.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was modified; Additional Issue No. 3 was restored; the District Court was directed to conclude the appeal by August 2010 and the suit hearing by December 2010.

Bapu Krishna Koli Vs Ashok Dattatraya Patil — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

ssp

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION
 WRIT PETITION NO.4265 OF 2009

¶4

Bapu Krishna Koli

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

Ashok Dattatraya Patil...Respondent

¶8

Ms Deepti Pawar h/f Mr.S.S.Patwardhan for the petitioner
None for the respondent

¶9

 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J.
 DATE : APRIL 20, 2010

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The
petitioner is the original defendant and the respondent
is the plaintiff. A money suit has been filed by the
respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.26,000/-. The
issues were framed on 5th February 1980. Additional
issues nos.3 to 5 were framed on 5th November 1982. The
additional issues nos. 3 to 5 read thus :

¶12

�3Is this suit dependent upon the finding on the
application filed by the defendant in the Civil
Court at Panhala under section 24 of the
Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1976 ?

¶13

4If the finding would be in the affirmative,
that the defendant is a marginal farmer, then
whether the suit loan is extinguished under the
said Act ?

¶14

5Is the suit claim of the plaintiff on his
failure to make such an application under the said
Act, tenable ?

¶15

¶16

2An application was made by the petitioner for
framing additional issues. The first additional issue
sought to be framed was whether the petitioner proves
that he was a farmer/worker as described in section 2(f)
and 2(h) of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act,1975
(hereinafter referred to as the said Act)? The second
suggested issue was whether the petitioner is a member of
a scheduled caste. By the impugned order, prayer made
by the petitioner was rejected and the learned Judge
proceeded to delete the three additional issues framed on
5th November 1982. The order of deletion was passed on
the basis of the Judgment and Order dated 6th September
2007 passed by the Civil Court on application under
section 24(1) of the said Act made by the petitioner. By
the said order, the application made by the petitioner
was rejected. Therefore, the learned Judge was of the
view that the additional issues suggested by the
petitioner and the additional issues framed under order
dated 5th November 1982 were not necessary.

¶17

3The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that
against the rejection of the application under section
24(1) of the said Act, the petitioner has preferred a
Civil Appeal No.77 of 2007 in the District court and the
said Appeal is pending as of today. She submitted that
the order dated 6th September 2007 has not attained
finality. The learned counsel for the respondent invited
my attention to the order dated 6th September 2007 in
which a finding has been already recorded that the
petitioner being a teacher, he does not fall under the
definition of �debtor� as contemplated by the said Act.
He stated that the respondent is not aware about the
pendency of any such appeal.

¶18

¶19

4I have considered the submissions. The statement
made by the petitioner that Appeal no.77 of 2007 is
pending, is accepted. In view of pendency of the said
appeal, the issue whether the petitioner is a debtor has
not been finally decided in the proceeding under the said
Act. Perusal of the additional issue no.3 framed on 5th
November 1982 shows that the same sufficiently takes care
of the contentions raised by the petitioner in the
written statement. Though additional issues as suggested
by the petitioner need not be framed, in view of the
pendency of the appeal, the aforesaid additional issue
no.3 will have to be restored.

¶20

5Hence, the petition is disposed of by passing
following order :

¶21

i) Impugned order is modified. Additional issue no.3 framed under order dated 5^th November 1982 is restored.

¶22

ii)All contentions of the parties on merits of the pending appeal are kept open.

¶23

iii)Hearing of the said Civil Appeal no.77 of 2007 is expedited. The District Court is directed to conclude the hearing of the appeal by the end of August 2010.

¶24

iv)Hearing of the suit is expedited. The hearing shall be concluded as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 31^st December 2010.

¶25

v) Writ Petition is partly allowed in above terms.

¶26

 JUDGE

¶27

Bapu Krishna Koli v. Ashok Dattatraya Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bapu Krishna Koli v. Ashok Dattatraya Patil

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Ujwala Vijaykumar Marathe Vs Vijaykumar Ramchandra Marathe

Tukaram Sattoppa Powar Vs Shivaji Jotiram Patil and Ors.

Govind Narhari Dangre and Ors. Vs Balkrishna Ramchandra Dangre Since Deceased Pralhad Balkrishna Dangre and Ors.

Mangal Mahavir Kempwade Vs Babasaheb Shankar Herwade and Anr.

Janata Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs Kamdhenu T. Company and Anr.

Vinod Durlabhdas Soni Alias Vinod D. Dhorda Vs Vijay Durlabhdas Soni, Alias Vijay D. Dhorda and Anr.