The applicant sought restraint on the respondent from alienating suit property. The court rejected the application as lacking substance based on the earlier order refusing similar prayers in CA No. 378/2013.
The Civil Application was rejected, and costs of Rs. 1,000/- were awarded to the respondent.
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
CA 12420.2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12420 of 2013 IN
SECOND APPEAL NO. 202 OF 2012
Ganpatrao s/o Madhavrao Nagime
... Applicant
VERSUS
Gopalrao Madhavrao Nagime ... Respondent
Mr. S.V. Gundre, Advocate holding for Mr. S.B. Madde, Advocate for applicant Mr. A.N. Irpatgire, Advocate for respondent
CORAM : A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATED : 27th JANUARY, 2014
PER COURT :
. This application is moved by the applicant, seeking directions that the respondent be restrained from alienating and creating third party interest of the suit property. The learned counsel for the applicant has claimed that the Second Appeal has been admitted, and thus it is necessary that the respondent should not create third party interest in the suit property.
2
CA 12420.2013
SDM* January-2014 C.A. No. 12420/2013
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondent should be restrained from alienating the suit property in the current application given the previous order denying similar prayers.
Whether the present civil application has merit in light of the earlier order passed in Civil Application No. 378/2013.
Ganpatrao s/o Madhavrao Nagime
Gopalrao Madhavrao Nagime
A.I.S. CHEEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
