Allowed

Ravi Talwar and Ors. v. the Court Receiver and Ors.

Bombay HC18 Dec 2012RPW/115/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed review petitions seeking to set aside an earlier order. Directory findings established certain respondents' prior possession. The court quashed the impugned order and remanded matters to the trial court for fresh findings on possession status.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; matter remanded to trial court to decide status of relevant respondents afresh after hearing.

Ravi Talwar and Ors. Vs the Court Receiver and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

3-rp-119-11

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

REVIEW PETITION NO.119 OF 2011

¶5

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4398 OF 2011

¶7

Ravi Talwar ....Petitioner. Versus The Court Receiver and Ors. ...Respondents.

¶8

Mr. for the Petitioner. Mr. for the respondents.

¶9

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶10

DATED : December 18, 2012.

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

Issue notice before admission to the respondents returnable after four weeks. In addition to Court notice, the petitioner shall also serve private notice upon the respondents by hand-delivery and/or registered post A.D. and/or by fax and/or by courier and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date.

¶13

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

Shivgan

3-rp-119-11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶18

REVIEW PETITION NO.122 OF 2011

¶19

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.4394 OF 2011

¶21

WITH

¶22

REVIEW PETITION NO.115 OF 2011

¶23

¶24

WRIT PETITION NO.4396 OF 2011

¶25

Ravi Talwar ....Petitioner. Versus The Court Receiver and Ors. ...Respondents.

¶26

Mr. for the Petitioner. Mr. for the respondents.

¶27

CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J.

¶28

DATED : December 18, 2012.

¶29

P.C.:

¶30

These review petitions are taken up for review of the order

¶31

dated 18^th July, 2011. By the said order, eleven writ petitions were disposed of. Main controversy in these writ petitions was whether respondents were in possession prior to the date of appointment of the

¶32

Court receiver or have been/being inducted by the existing tenants. Subsequent to the appointment of the Court Receiver so far as these

Shivgan

3-rp-119-11

eleven respondents are concerned trial Court protected possession of these respondents and, therefore, petitioners had filed the above petitions so far as eight petitioners in writ petition numbers baki char are concerned eight respondents in writ petitions are concerned, trial Court recorded categorical findings that they were in possession of the suit property prior to the date of appointment of the Court receiver. As far as respondents in present two writ petitions are concerned, there is no specific findings by the trial Court as and when they came in possession of the suit property.

¶37

In the above circumstances, counsel for the respondents has no objection if review peitions are allowed and the order impugned in the writ petitions are quashed and set aside so far as the respondents in the present writ petitions are concerned ------ with further direction to the trial Court to decide the status of these respondents afresh after giving opportunity to both sides. In view of the concession, separate reasons need not be recorded and for setting aside the order impugned---. Review petitions are, accordingly, disposed of by passing the following order:

¶38

Order dated 18^th July, 2011 passed by this Court in writ petition no.------- and writ petition no.-------- is recalled.

¶39

Impugned order in writ petitions------- is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the trial Court

Shivgan

3-rp-119-11

Trial Court shall decide the cases of the respondents in these two petitions.

¶44

Trial Court shall hear notice of motion no.3613 of 2005 and decide notice of motion afresh as far as respondents in these petitions are concerned and record fresh findings after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides.

¶45

Needless to mention that trial Court shall decide rights of the motion independently on its own merits and as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶46

(RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶47

Shivgan

Ravi Talwar and Ors. v. the Court Receiver and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravi Talwar and Ors. v. the Court Receiver and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Pramod Tukaram Salunke Vs Shri. Atmaram Baban Kanhere and Ors.

Dr. Smt. Urvashi Arora and Ors. Vs Smt. Gurpreet Kaur

Mrs. Punam Suraj Rai and Anr. Vs Shri. Subhash K Thakker Since Deceased through His Legal Heir Milind Subhash Thakker

Sau. Jayashri Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh Vs Shri. Ramchandra Neminath Mohite and Ors.

Shankar Mahadev Vichare Vs Manik Laxmidas Shah

Shri. Mahadu Raoji Bhoye and Ors. Vs Sau. Parvatibai Mahadu Gave and Ors.