Single bench reviewed two applications: a delay condonation order and a review of an interim order refusing stay on injunction. The delay was condoned and the review was rejected.
Delay of 53 days condoned; Review application rejected.
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.
ca1297011.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12970 OF 2011 IN REVIEW APPLICATION ST.NO.24132 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4313 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.766 OF 2010
Satish s/o Devanand More
and others
Applicants
Versus
Harjeetsing s/o Puransingh Chugh
Respondent
Mr.G.J.Karne, advocate for applicants. Mr.S.G.Chincholkar, advocate for Respondent.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE :02nd November, 2012.
PER COURT:
This is an application for condoning delay of 53 days occurred in presenting the application for review.
Considering the contentions raised in the application, application deserves to be allowed and same is accordingly allowed. Delay occurred in presenting Review Application stands condoned.
Civil Application stands disposed of.
R.M.BORDE
JUDGE
adb/ca1297011
ca1297011.odt
{2}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION ST.NO.24132 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4313 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.766 OF 2010
Satish s/o Devanand More and others
Applicants
Versus
Harjeetsing s/o Puransingh Chugh
Respondent
Mr.G.J.Karne, advocate for applicants. Mr.S.G.Chincholkar, advocate for Respondent.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. DATE :02nd November, 2012.
PER COURT:
1 The applicants are seeking review of the order dated 28.06.2011, passed by this Court in Civil Application No.4313/2010 in First Appeal No.766/2010.
2 This Court, while disposing of the application, has granted stay to the execution of decree for specific performance of contract, however, has refused to grant stay in respect of directions contained in paragraph no.3 of the decree passed by trial Court on 21.03.2010, whereby defendants are restrained from obstructing peaceful possession of the plaintiff in respect of suit property. While dealing with the issue, it has been observed that the plaintiff, prima facie, appears to be in possession of the property. During pendency of Special Civil Suit No.
ca1297011.odt
{3}
39/2009, an application preferred by the plaintiff on Exhibit-6 claiming order of injunction against defendants was allowed and order passed by the trial Court was challenged by filing an appeal, being Appeal From Order No.45/2009. This Court directed disposal of the suit at the earliest and as such, order of injunction, passed in the suit, remained intact till disposal of the suit. In this view of the matter, this Court has refused to grant stay to the order passed by the trial Court restraining defendants from causing interference in peaceful possession of the plaintiff.
3 On perusal of the order, there appears no error apparent on the face of record committed by this Court. The application for review is without substance.
4 Review Application stands rejected.
R.M.BORDE
JUDGE
adb/ca1297011
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay of 53 days in filing review application deserves condonation.
Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the interim order.
Satish s/o Devanand More and others
Harjeetsing s/o Puransingh Chugh
R.M.BORDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
