Allowed

Shivaji Parasram Pawar v. Ratan Navnath Pawar

Bombay HC8 May 2012WP/2292/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad held that the impugned order allowing an appeal without a proper hearing to the petitioner was unsustainable in law. The court quashed the order and remanded the matter to the District Court for a fresh decision. The judgment is classified as thin.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order and remanded the appeal to the District Court for a fresh disposal with directions to appear on a specified date.

Shivaji Parasram Pawar Vs Ratan Navnath Pawar — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

W.P.No.2292/12

¶3

 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

 APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.2292 OF 2012,

¶7

Shivaji S/o Parasram Pawar Vs. Ratan S/o Navnath Pawar.

¶8

Office Notes, Office
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's
orders or directions
andRegistrar's
orders.

¶9

Court's or Judge's orders

¶10

Mr.S.G.Jadhavar, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Nirmal, advocate for the Respondent.

¶11

 CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.

¶12

 Date : 08.05.2012.

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

Heard.

¶15

The petitioner is the original plaintiff. Along with the suit, had filed an application for temporary injunction. The same was allowed. Aggrieved thereby, the defendant filed appeal before the District Court. In the said appeal, it appears that Joint Purshis was filed for remitting the matter to the trial court with direction to decide the suit expeditiously. The Court passed the order and thereafter again passed the order in appeal allowing the same. The said order is assailed in the present Writ Petition.

¶16

Mr.Jadhavar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the impugned judgment is passed without hearing the petitioner. In view of the joint purshis filed by the parties, the District Court had

¶17

¶18

W.P.No.2292/12

¶19

even passed the order. Thereafter, again could not have passed the order allowing the appeal. The contentions of the petitioner are not considered.

¶20

Mr.Nirmal, learned counsel for the Respondent supports the order and submits that even the arguments of the petitioner are recorded. The said order is legal and valid as the suit is to be decided expeditiously.

¶21

It appears that joint purshis is filed by the parties contending that the suit bearing RCS No.296/2009 and RCS No.138/2009 are partheard and may kindly be expedited. The Court had also considered the same and had passed the order. Thereafter, it seems the appeal has been allowed.

¶22

At this stage, I would not like to enter into the controversy about the orders passed by the Court. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not heard when the appeal was decided on merits, though it is observed by the Court about the arguments.

¶23

In view of the above, without entering into the factual matrix and the contentions raised by the respective counsel, I set aside the impugned order and relegate the parties to the District Court for deciding the said appeal afresh.

¶24

In the result, I pass the following order :

¶25

(i) The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties

¶26

¶27

W.P.No.2292/12

¶28

are relegated before the District Court. The District Court shall decide Misc.Civil Appeal No.71/2010 afresh. The parties shall appear before the District Court on 14.6.2012.

¶29

(S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)

¶30

Dt.08.05.2012. asp/office/wp2292.12

¶31

¶32

W.P.No.2292/12

Shivaji Parasram Pawar v. Ratan Navnath Pawar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivaji Parasram Pawar v. Ratan Navnath Pawar

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

Mahesh Laxmanrao Gaikwad Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary

Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Nagari Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Chitra Theatre Ahmednagar Vs Gajanan Laxman Kulkarni

Dattatraya Raghunath Kokadwar Vs Pankaj Kamalkishor Maliwal and Ors.

Bajirao Dagadu Ghate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Manik Dashrath Pawar Vs Keru Bhaguji Kawale and Ors.