Disposed

Pralhad Krishna Gilbile v. Raghunath Narayan Tapkir (Since Decd) through Lrs.

Bombay HC1 Apr 2016WP/3805/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order returning partition papers to the Collector for effecting partition. The Court stayed partition proceedings for three weeks to enable the petitioner to seek interim relief in a pending Sub-Divisional Officer appeal, disposing of the writ petition as not pressed.

What did the court decide?

Partition proceedings stayed for three weeks; liberty granted to file application for interim relief in pending appeal.

Pralhad Krishna Gilbile Vs Raghunath Narayan Tapkir (Since Decd)… — Partition | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 / 3 WP/3805/2016

¶2

Tapadia RR/B.903

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3805 OF 2016

¶4

Pralhad Krishna Gilbile

¶5

Petitioner

¶6

¶7

Raghunath Narayan Tapkir, s since deceased through L.R 1a- Muktabai Raghunath Tapkir and Ors.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Sudhir Vinayak Sadavarte, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶10

CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 01/04/2016

¶11

PC :

¶12

Heard Mr. Sudhir V. Sadavarte, learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

¶13

By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged order dated 10.12.2015 passed by the learned trial Judge. By that order, the learned trial Judge returned the papers to the Collector for effecting partition as per the decree.

¶14

It appears that pursuant to the partition decree, Tahasildar has accepted the partition chart prepared by Taluka Inspector of Land records, Haveli, Pune, by order dated 9.1.2012 and ordered handing over possession as per the partition chart on 24.1.2012. Mr. Sadavarte submitted that initially against the order dated 3.10.2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4661 of 2010, Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Apex Court. By order dated 13.1.2012 notice was issued and in the meantime parties were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the

¶15

2 / 3 WP/3805/2016

¶16

suit property. He further submitted that aggrieved by the order of Tahasildar Havili Pune dated 9.1.2012, the petitioners have preferred R.T.S. Appeal No.150 of 2012 before Sub Divisional Officer, (Revenue), Havili Sub Division, Pune. As per order dated 13.1.2012 of Apex Court, as status-quo was operating, the petitioners did not apply interim order in the appeal. The S.L.P was dismissed on 27.11.2015. He states that within two weeks from today, the petitioner will file appropriate application in the pending appeal for obtaining interim relief. He submits that for a period of three weeks from today, proceedings before the Collector may be stayed so as to enable the petitioner to obtain suitable interim order.

¶17

In view thereof, Petition is disposed of as not pressed with liberty to the petitioner to take out appropriate application for interim relief within two weeks from today in the pending appeal. For a period of three weeks from today, the Collector shall not effect partition. Grant of liberty as also grant of interim order for a period of three weeks from today shall not be construed as an expression of merits either way. If such application for interim relief is taken out, the Appellate Authority will decide the same on the basis of material on record and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the observations made herein. Petition is disposed of as not pressed. All contentions of the parties are

¶18

3 / 3 WP/3805/2016

¶19

expressly kept open. All the parties including Collector to act upon the authenticated copy of the order. Order accordingly.

¶20

(R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Pralhad Krishna Gilbile v. Raghunath Narayan Tapkir (Since Decd) through Lrs.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pralhad Krishna Gilbile v. Raghunath Narayan Tapkir (Since Decd) through Lrs.

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

M/S. Cosmic Developers Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

M/S. Drushti Engineeers and Developers through Mrs. Hanmant Nisalkar Vs M/S. J. K Infra Utilities Pvt. Ltd. through Officer, Mr. Sameer Dalvi

Smt. Chandrabai Shama Bhoir and Others. Vs 1. Mr. Sunil R. Bhanushali and Others

Vilas Rasiklal Shah and Ors. Vs Dilawarkhan Daudkhan Pathan and Ors.

Shri. Mahavir Devappa Sangme Vs Shri. Raosaheb Baburao Tardale and Ors.

Mrs. Shukra Jagadish Nabar Vs Mrs. Jyotsna Arvind Savur