This Writ Petition was disposed of by directing the petitioner to file a proper restitution application in the Trial Court under CPC Sections 47 or 144.
Directed the petitioner to file a proper restitution application in the Trial Court under CPC Sections 47 or 144.
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.
wp-8173.12
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8173 OF 2012
Kashinath Tukaram Date
: Petitioner.
Versus
Smt.Kaushlyabai Jagannath Rathi & ors. : Respondents.
Mr.S A Ghaisas with Mr. Sham Walve for the Petitioner. Mr. R D Soni i/by Ram & Co. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4.
CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 23rd October 2012
P.C.
1 The Application Exhibit 79 filed by the Petitioner, who is the Judgment Debtor, has been rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the Applicant could not satisfy as to under which provision of the Code of Civil Procedure the said Application was filed.
2 It is the case of the Applicant that the decree has been wrongly executed, whereas it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Decree Holders Shri Soni, that such is not the case. The learned counsel for the Petitioner, in so far as the powers of the court are concerned, relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge reported in 1989(2) Bom. C.R. 150 in the matter of H.M.Date v/s. Ramaji son of Bholajhi Bind , wherein it has been
held by the learned Single Judge that a recourse could be had to Sections 47 and 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restitution.
1 of 2
lgc
wp-8173.12
3 In the instant case, since the Application has been rejected on the ground as adverted to herein above, it would be open for the Petitioner to file an appropriate Application for restitution. If such an Application is filed, the concerned Court would consider the same on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the impugned order. With the aforesaid observations, the above Writ Petition is disposed of.
[R.M.SAVANT, J]
2 of 2
lgc
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petitioner should be directed to approach the Trial Court by filing an appropriate application under Sections 47 or 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure for restitution instead of aggri
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
H.M.Date v/s. Ramaji son of Bholajhi BindReferred¶12
1989(2) Bom. C.R. 150 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Kashinath Tukaram Date
Smt. Kaushlyabai Jagannath Rathi & ors.
R. M. Savant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
