This short order confirmed an interim injunction restraining the respondent from executing a decree related to a property suit, pending the final disposal of the applicant's second appeal.
Interim relief restraining execution confirmed; civil application disposed of.
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 cas-835-11 in sa-377-11.sxw
mmj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.835 OPF 2011 IN
SECOND APPEAL NO.377 OF 2011
Shri Dattatraya Kurandale
.. Applicant
versus
Shri Ananda @ Devram Narayan Kurandale & Ors.
.. Respondents
Mr. S.P.Shinde for the Applicant Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal for the Respondent No.1
CORAM:- R M SAVANT, J DATED :- MARCH 21, 2012.
P.C.
1 The above Civil Application has been filed for restraining the Respondent No.1 herein from executing the Judgment and Decree dated 29-3-1985 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.90 of 1981 which is confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court in Civil Appeal No.544 of 1985 and Civil Appeal No.680 of 1985. The said Regular Civil Suit No.90 of 1981 was filed by the Respondent No.1 herein claiming his share in the suit property i.e. Gat No.3452 situate at Shirur, Taluka Shirur District Pune. The said suit
was decreed in favour of the Respondent No.1 and thereafter the said decree was also confirmed in the Appeal. The Applicant/Appellant thereafter filed the instant suit in question being Regular Civil Suit No.186 of 1994 challenging the decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.90 of 1981.
In the instant suit, the Applicant/Appellant had sought a declaration that
2 cas-835-11 in sa-377-11.sxw
the said decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.90 of 1981 was not binding upon his share. The said suit came to be decreed against which the Respondent No.1 filed an Appeal being No.767 of 2005 which was allowed and the decree passed by the Trial Court came to be set aside on the ground of resjudicata.
2 The above Second Appeal has been admitted on 7-12-2011 on the substantial question of law which revolves around whether the suit filed by the Appellant was barred by principles of resjudicata.
3 It appears that the Respondent No.1 has filed an application for execution of the decree passed in the said Regular Civil Suit No.90 of 1981 which is pending. In the above Civil Application an ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) has been granted. In the facts and circumstances of the present case wherein there is a decree in favour of the Applicant/Appellant which has been upset by the Lower Appellate Court, it would be just and proper to confirm the ad-interim relief granted in terms of prayer clause (b) which would operate pending the hearing and final disposal of the above Second Appeal. The above Civil Application is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (b).
(R M SAVANT, J)
Shri Dattatraya Kurandale
Shri Ananda @ Devram Narayan Kurandale & Ors.
R M Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
