The High Court at Aurangabad disposed of a writ petition wherein the petitioner sought to clarify that previous observations did not preclude other remedies under procedural law, specifically Order XIV Rule 2 CPC.
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 WP No. 790/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 790 of 2017
Gangadhar S/o Fakira Landge age 65 yers occupation agriculture R/o Pimpalgaon Landga Taluka and District Ahmednagar ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Mr Ajeet B. Kale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr Girish K. Thigale, Advocate for respondents
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 23rd August, 2018
ORDER :
2 WP No. 790/2017
should not be deemed to wipe out resort to other remedies for petitioner as may be available under the procedural law, particularly, Order XIV, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code.
( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE.
Madkar
Gangadhar S/o Fakira Landge
Sau. Tarabai Bapu Nimse
Sau. Shevanta Nana Shinde
Sunil P. Deshmukh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
