Allowed

Shri. Yashwant Anant Patil and Ors. v. Shri. Pandurang Dharma Madhavi and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Mar 2019WP/497/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order where a District Judge suo moto reviewed a previous judgment. The Court held that review was not justified without a party application and denied sufficient opportunity to opponents. Liberty was given for a fresh review under specific conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 13 December 2011 set aside; liberty granted to respondents to institute review within 4 weeks to be decided on merits without limitation issue.

Shri. Yashwant Anant Patil and Ors. Vs Shri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

Dinesh Sherla

¶2

1-cwp-497-12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.497 OF 2012

¶4

Yashwant A. Patil (Deceased through his Lrs.) and ors. .. Petitioners

¶5

vs.

¶6

Pandurang Dharma Madhavi and ors. .. Respondents

¶7

Ms Neeta P. Karnik for the Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Vachan Bodke a/w. Ms Pinky Sharma and Bhagyashri Ranade I/b V & M Legal for Respondent Nos. 5(1) to 9-A.

¶9

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : 11 MARCH 2019.

¶10

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶11

1] Heard Ms Karnik, learned counsel for the petitioners

¶12

and Mr. Bodke, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶13

2] Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith with the consent of and at the request of learned counsel for the parties.

¶14

3] The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 13 December 2011 by which the learned Ad-hoc District Judge – 2, Thane has suo moto reviewed the order dated 21 January

¶15

2011 made below Exhibit-6 by observing that the

1/3

Dinesh Sherla

1-cwp-497-12

Predecessor Judge ought not to have made such order.

¶20

4] The record indicates that after the order dated 21 January 2011 was made, the pleadings were amended, additional written statement was filed and even evidence was partly recorded.

¶21

4] According to me, at this stage, without there being any application on the part of the respondents seeking for any review, the learned Ad-hoc District Judge was not justified in exercising review jurisdiction suo moto and on such basis upsetting the order dated 21 January 2011 made below Exhibit-6. The manner in which the impugned order has been made is bound to have prejudiced the petitioners, since the petitioners were really not granted sufficient opportunity to oppose the exercise of review jurisdiction.

¶22

5] On the aforesaid short ground, the impugned order dated 13 December 2011 is hereby set aside. However, liberty is granted to the respondents to institute a review petition, if they so chose. If the review petition is instituted within four

2/3

Dinesh Sherla

1-cwp-497-12

weeks from today, then Ms Neeta Karnik, learned counsel for the petitioners, states that the same will not be opposed on the ground that it is barred by law of limitation. She however, adds that liberty be reserved to the petitioners to oppose the review petition on merits. This statement is accepted.

¶27

6] Thus, any of the respondents chose to institute review petition within four weeks from today, then the learned Adhoc District Judge is directed to dispose of such review petition on its own merits and in accordance with law but without adverting to the issue of limitation.

¶28

7] It is made clear that this Court has not examined the merits of the matter and the impugned order has been set aside basically on the ground that this was not a fit case for exercise of suo moto review jurisdiction and because no sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioners to oppose the exercise of review jurisdiction.

¶29

8] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

9] All concerned to act on the basis of an authenticated copy of this order.

¶31

(M. S. SONAK, J.)

¶32

3/3

Shri. Yashwant Anant Patil and Ors. v. Shri. Pandurang Dharma Madhavi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Yashwant Anant Patil and Ors. v. Shri. Pandurang Dharma Madhavi and Ors.

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

Shri Damodar Raoji Pimple and Ors. Vs Shri Rahul Ashok Pimple and Ors.

Shri. Nitin Dinanath Shirkar Vs Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Chandrakant G. Shinde Vs Mr. Niranjan v. Naik

Mrs. Aarti Vijay Menon Vs Mr. Vijay Satyan Menon

Sadashiv Vithoba Khandve (Sinde Deceased) and Ors. Vs Asad Udoula Imram Hussain Bisvas and Ors.

Smt. Maltibai Kisan Bhagat and Anr. Vs Dattaram Mahadeo Bhoir and Ors.