Dismissed

Govardhan Sadashiv Choudhari and Ors. v. Vishnu Bajrang Ubale through Gpa Trimbak Bajrang Ubale

Bombay HC8 Mar 2011WP/1487/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Appellate Court's rejection of a stay application in a civil appeal against a decree restraining the petitioner. The High Court found no error or perversity in the Appellate Court's judgment regarding the lis pendence transfer and possession issues, disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of. A period of three months was granted for the petitioner to supply the private paper book.

Govardhan Sadashiv Choudhari and Ors. Vs Vishnu Bajrang… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶4

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.: 1487 OF 2011

¶6

***

¶7

1.Heard Advocate Shri Kishor Doke for

¶8

Petitioner and Shri Mahajan for Respondent
No.1.

¶9

2.Trial Court decreed the suit vide
judgment dated 4th February, 2009 and
restrainedpresentpetitionerfrom

¶10

interfering with the possession of the
plaintiff. The said decree is questioned by
present petitioner by filing Regular Civil

¶11

Appeal No.92 of 2010. In that appeal he
sought stay of execution of that judgment and
decree. The Appellate Court has rejected
that prayer. That rejection is questioned in
present writ petition.

¶12

3.According to Mr. Doke, the suit as filed

¶13

was not maintainable because it was hit by

¶14

provisions of section 47 read with Order XXI

¶15

¶16

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶18

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶19

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶20

Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He

¶21

further contends that purchase by plaintiff
Vishnu (Present Respondent) is a lis pendence
transfer and therefore could not have been
given much importance. According to him,
possession is recovered by petitioner in
execution of decree obtained by him in
Regular Civil Suit No.173 of 1991 on 21st
June, 2004.

¶22

4.Shri Mahajan is supporting the order.
He contends that the trial Court has found
Respondent/ plaintiff entitled to injunction
and suit has been decreed finally after
appreciationofmaterialonrecord.

¶23

Appellate Court refused to grant stay.

¶24

5.Prima facie consideration reveals that
though the present petitioner claims to have
recovered possession on 21st June, 2004, he
got possession of land admeasuring 2 Hectare

¶25

¶26

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶27

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶28

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶29

2 Ares in Gat No.77 and 1 Hectare in Gat No.

¶30

116. The perusal of judgment of trial Court

¶31

also shows that when Regular Civil Suit No.
132 of 1993 was decreed, at that time one
Amarnath Shahaji Chaudhari was in possession
of suit property and in that suit injunction

¶32

was granted against present petitioner and
possession of Amarnath was protected. The
said Amarnath then sold suit property to
original plaintiff i.e. present Respondent.

¶33

6.In view of the findings recorded by
trial Court it is apparent that at this stage
the consideration by Appellate Court cannot
be said to be erroneous or perverse.

¶34

7.No case is made out warranting any
interference. However, proceedings in
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal are expedited.
Petitioner is permitted to supply private
paper book within a period of three months

¶35

¶36

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶37

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶38

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders.

¶39

Court’s or Judge’s orders.

¶40

from today. If such private paper book is
supplied, the Appellate Court shall attempt
to decide the appeal within further period of
nine months. With these observations, the
petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶41

[B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.]
Dated:08/03/2011.
ans/1487

Govardhan Sadashiv Choudhari and Ors. v. Vishnu Bajrang Ubale through Gpa Trimbak Bajrang Ubale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govardhan Sadashiv Choudhari and Ors. v. Vishnu Bajrang Ubale through Gpa Trimbak Bajrang Ubale

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

Namdeo Ramchandra Kadu Patil Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.

Sfs Education Societys St Xaviers High School Aurangabad through Fr Walter Daigo Gonsalvis Vs Benjamin Joy

Ramrao Dagdu Gavande Vs the State of Mahrashtra and Ors.

Subhadrabai Muralidhar Karale and Anr. Vs Asaram Raghunath Berad and Anr.

Ravindra Jagannath Bari Vs Ramesh Sitaram Bahate L.Rs. Shalini Ramesh Barhate and Ors.

Latabai Ramprasad Thorat Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.