Quashed

Shaikh Naimuddin Mainuddin Maniyarsaheb v. Balasaheb Baburao Shinde

Bombay HC30 Jan 2017WP/6358/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad quashed an impugned order of the trial court that allowed measurement of entire S.No.52 land without specifying reasons. The court held the order illegal and perverse as it enlarged the scope of dispute.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order granting measurement of entire S.No.52 land and rejected the application.

Shaikh Naimuddin Mainuddin Maniyarsaheb Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

wp635816.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6358 OF 2016

¶3

Shaikh Naimuddin s/o Mainuddin Maniyarsaheb, age: 65 years, Occ: Business, R/o Shahavali Mohalla, Boudh Nagar, Latur.

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Balasaheb Baburao Shinde, age: 51 years, Occ: service, R/o Prakash Nagar, Latur. Respondent

¶7

Mr.D.P.Deshpande, advocate for the petitioner Mr.C.R.Deshpande, advocate for the Respondent.

¶8

CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE, J. DATE : 30^th January, 2017

¶9

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶10

1 Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for respective parties.

¶11

2 By the impugned order, the application vide Exhibit-94 field by Respondent – original defendant, for measuring entire land S.No.52 of Latur, has been granted by the trial Court. Perusal of the application, moved in this regard, would show that no reasons are specified as to why entire land S.No.52, which does not comprise one or two parts but several parts, needs to be measured. No justification for carrying out measurement of entire S.No.52 whatsoever has been given or appears on record. Even the impugned order dated 21.03.2016 does not state any reason as to why measurement of entire S.No.52 would be beneficial for

¶12

{2}

¶13

wp635816.odt

¶14

adjudicating controversy between the parties. The only reason stated is that, by allowing such application, no harm would be caused to the plaintiff. I would rather find that allowing of such vague application would only result in opening Pandora's Box and would also enlarge scope of dispute raised by the petitioner. The impugned order, therefore, cannot stand the scrutiny of law, being illegal and perverse.

¶15

3 Writ Petition is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. Application Exhibit-94 stands rejected. However, liberty is given to the Respondent to file a fresh application on specific grounds. The trial Court shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit as early as possible, preferably within one year from the date of the order.

¶16

4 Rule is accordingly made absolute. No costs.

¶17

S.B.SHUKRE

¶18

JUDGE

¶19

adb/wp635816

Shaikh Naimuddin Mainuddin Maniyarsaheb v. Balasaheb Baburao Shinde

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Naimuddin Mainuddin Maniyarsaheb v. Balasaheb Baburao Shinde

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

Rahul Lobhaji Shelke Vs Sonali Rahul Shelke

Vishal Bhagwanrao Chandel Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Pravin Pandurang Kokate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jyoti Kanhayalal Baswe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division Vs Dhudku Dodhu Patil and Anr.

Poonam Rajesh Pawar Vs the Returning Officer and Others