Allowed

Dhanaji Pachan Patel v. Jameel Yarkhan Mehaboob Yarkhan and Anr.

Bombay HC6 Jul 2012WP/4250/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order of the Civil Judge that denied the petitioner an opportunity to file a reply. The writ petition was allowed so the respondent application could be reheard by the trial court within one month.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the application is restored to the file for fresh adjudication within one month.

Dhanaji Pachan Patel Vs Jameel Yarkhan… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

1 wp4250.11

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.4250 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1147 OF 2012

¶4

Dhanaji Pachan Patel,
Age: 56 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Sakhala Nagar, Satara Area,
Village Satara,
Taluka and Dist. Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

Jameel Yarkhan s/o Mehaboob Yarkhan,
Age: 54 years, Occ: Agri. & Business,
R/o. Mill Corner, Aurangabad
and another. ...RESPONDENTS

¶7

...

¶8

Mr. P.M. Shah, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Satyajit R.
Vakil, Advocate for petitioner-applicant.
Mr. P.F. Patni, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and
2.

¶9

...

¶10

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J.

¶11

 DATE : 6TH JULY, 2012

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

This writ petition takes exception to the

¶14

order dated 21st August, 2010 passed by the 15th

¶15

Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad
below Exhibit-37 in Regular Civil Suit No. 609 of

¶16

2 wp4250.11

¶17

2005.

¶18

2.The learned Senior Counsel appearing for

¶19

the petitioner submitted that, the impugned order
is passed without giving proper opportunity of
filing reply to the application filed by the
respondents. The learned Senior Counsel also
advanced argument on merits. The matter was heard
on 5th July, 2012, however, same was adjourned
today i.e. 6th July, 2012 at the instance of the
Counsel appearing for the respondents to take
instructions from his client, whether he is ready
for remand of the matter to the concerned Court,
for fresh adjudication of the application at
Exhibit-37 by giving opportunity to the petitioner
for filing say and for arguing the matter.
Accordingly, Counsel for the respondents on
instructions from his client has no objection if
the impugned order is set aside, and application
at Exhibit-37 is restored to its original file for

¶20

fresh adjudication. The Counsel for the

¶21

petitioner has no objection.

¶22

3 wp4250.11

¶23

3.In view of the consensus between the

¶24

parties that, the matter can be remanded back to
the concerned Court for fresh hearing on
application below Exhibit-37 in Regular Civil Suit
No. 609 of 2005, without touching to the merits of
the matter, the following order is passed.

¶25

: O R D E R :

¶26

(1)The impugned order dated 21st August, 2010
passed by the 15th Joint Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Aurangabad below Exhibit-37 in Regular
Civil Suit No. 609 of 2005 is set aside. The
application below Exhibit-37 in Regular Civil Suit
No. 609 of 2005 is restored to its original file.
The concerned Court will allow the petitioner to
file his say and after affording proper
opportunity of hearing to both the parties, shall
dispose of the application, as expeditiously as
possible, however, within one month from today.

¶27

(2)The writ petition is disposed of on the

¶28

4 wp4250.11

¶29

above terms.

¶30

(3)In view of the final disposal of the writ
petition,nothingfurthersurvivesfor
consideration in the Civil Application, same
stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

sut/JULY12

Dhanaji Pachan Patel v. Jameel Yarkhan Mehaboob Yarkhan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanaji Pachan Patel v. Jameel Yarkhan Mehaboob Yarkhan and Anr.

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

Manohar Laxman Yadav Vs Vijay @ Jaising Vijay Sonawane and Ors.

Osman Baig Sandu Baig Alias Amir Baig Died Lrs Jahir Baig Osman Baig and Ors. Vs Kashinath Yadeo Hiwarde Deceased through Lrs Ramhari Kashinath Hiwarde and Ors.

The Municipal Council Paranda Thr. Chief Officer Vs Prabhakar Eknath Chaitnya

Yogesh Namdeo Chavan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corp. Vs N C Shaikh

Dnyan Prabodh Shikshan Sanstha Deopul Dist a.Bad Thr President Vs the State of Mah and Anr.