Disposed

Abdul Karim Abdul Khaliq and Another v. Marathwada Depressed Class League Hostel

Bombay HC27 Oct 2014WP/401/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court maintained status quo regarding the suit property pending the trial court's decision on an application to set aside an ex parte decree and condonation of delay, fixing a four-week timeline for such decision.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the trial court to decide the application for setting aside ex parte decree within four weeks; parties to maintain status quo.

Abdul Karim Abdul Khaliq and Another Vs Marathwada… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

(1) W.P. No. 401 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Writ Petition No. 401 of 2014

¶4

Abdul Karim s/o. Abdul Khaliq, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. Nayee Abadi, Nanded, Taluka & District : Nanded.

¶5

Shaikh Aslam s/o. Abdul Khaliq, Age : 41 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. Nayee Abadi, Nanded, .. Petitioners Taluka & District : Nanded. (Original defendants)

¶6

versus

¶7

Marathwada Depressed Class League Hostel, Through the Secretary, Ishwar s/o. Chokhoba Jondhale, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Advocate, R/o. Behind Handloom Centre, Shivajinagar, College Road, Nanded, .. Respondent Taluka & District : Nanded. (Original plaintiff)

¶8

Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate, with Mr. A.S. Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.H. Kasliwal, Advocate, for the respondent.

¶9

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : 27TH OCTOBER 2014

¶10

W.P. No. 401 of 2014

¶11

PER COURT :

¶12

Heard both sides.

¶13

The respondent to the present petition holds a decree for possession passed by the learned trial court, in Regular Civil Suit No. 25 of 2010, which is admittedly an ex parte decree.

¶14

The petitioners have filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure [For short, “C.P.C.”] , for setting aside the said ex parte decree, along with application for condonation of delay.

¶15

The respondent herein, based on the decree for possession passed by the learned trial court, has filed execution proceedings in which warrant of possession in relation to the suit property is issued.

¶16

Mr. Mandlik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners (original defendants), submits that till the decision of the application for condonation of delay in preferring the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C., the parties hereto be directed to maintain status quo as regards possession of the property. He submits, that the application for condonation of delay can be argued and decided within stipulated period.

¶17

Mr. Kasliwal, learned Counsel for the respondent (original plaintiff), agreed to maintaining status quo as regards the possession over the suit property, till the decision on the application for condonation of

¶18

(3) W.P. No. 401 of 2014

¶19

delay. He submits, that the learned trial court be directed to decide the said application within stipulated period.

¶20

In view of the above, the learned trial court is directed to decide the application for condonation of delay, in preferring application under Order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C., within a period of four weeks from today. If the application, so preferred by the petitioners, is granted, the trial court shall immediately proceed to decide the application for stay preferred by the petitioners.

¶21

The parties hereto agree that they shall maintain status quo in relation to the suit property, till the decision on the application for condonation of delay. The parties hereto further agree that they shall appear before the learned trial court on 5th November 2014.

¶22

The trial court is directed to take up the matter for hearing on the request of the parties and shall decide the same within the period stipulated above.

¶23

The Writ Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

bgp/ wp401

Abdul Karim Abdul Khaliq and Another v. Marathwada Depressed Class League Hostel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Karim Abdul Khaliq and Another v. Marathwada Depressed Class League Hostel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amarchand Swarupchand Gandhi. Vs Eknath Gangaram Jadhav and Others.

The Co-Operative Industrial Estate Ltd. Pachora Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kundanbai Mannasing Bais Vs Nanded Municipal Council Thorugh C.O. Nanded

Suryakant Vasantrao Chate through Father Vasantrao Bhanudas Chate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Chief Executive Officer Zp Aurangabad Vs Sakhu Yeshwant Shelar

Rama Manjaji Satpute Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others