Dismissed

Milind Vishnupanth Kulkarni and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Collector and Ors.

Bombay HC12 Mar 2019WP/5781/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court addressed the petitioner's apprehension that the trial Judge would not fairly consider a pending application for a Court Commissioner. Noting prior District Court clarifications mandating merits-based consideration, the present petition was dismissed and the trial Court was directed to decide the application within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed the learned trial Judge to decide the application for appointment of a Court Commissioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within six weeks.

Milind Vishnupanth Kulkarni and Ors. Vs State of… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 921) wps-4598-19.doc

¶2

SAS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.4598 OF 2019 WITH WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.4260 OF 2019

¶6

Milind V.Kulkarni ..Petitioner.

¶7

V/s.

¶8

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

¶9

..Respondents.

¶10

Mr.Ajay A.Joshit for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr.R.P.Kadam, AGP for respondent-State.

¶12

Mr. Vijay D.Patil for respondent No.4.

¶13

CORAM: M.S.SONAK, J.

¶14

DATE : MARCH 12, 2019

¶15

P.C.:-

¶16

Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the application for appointment of Court Commissioner is pending before the learned trial Judge. However, he submits that the petitioner had an apprehension that this application will not be considered in accordance with law and on its own merits because on the earlier occasion, learned trial Judge had rejected the application for appointment of Court Commissioner below Exhibit-29.

¶17

According to me, such an apprehension as expressed by

¶18

2 921) wps-4598-19.doc

¶19

Mr.Joshi is quite misconceived. This is because, the petitioner has challenged the order made below Exhibit-5 before the District Court by instituting Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.50/2018 which was disposed of by the District Court by making following order :-

¶20

“ 1. Appeal is disposed off in the following terms.

¶21

2. The prayer for order of injunction is hereby rejected.

¶22

3. Plaintiffs are at liberty to file application for appointment of Court Commissioner for fixing boundaries of the suit lands and boundary of suit road. The Trial Court will consider the application if made for appointment of Court Commissioner for fixing the boundaries of the suit lands and the suit road on its own merit. ”

¶23

The operative clause 3 of the aforesaid order of the District Court makes it clear that the petitioner is granted opportunity to file an application for appointment of Court Commissioner and the trial Court will have to consider such an application on its own merits.

¶24

In the light of aforesaid categorical directions, it is clear that learned trial Judge is bound to consider the application for appointment of Court Commissioner now made by the petitioner on its own merits and without being influenced by the earlier orders made by the trial Court on the issue of appointment of Court Commissioner.

¶25

Accordingly, there is absolutely no reason to entertain the

¶26

3 921) wps-4598-19.doc

¶27

present petition now that the matter has been clarified as aforesaid.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid clarification, learned counsel for

¶29

the petitioner does not press both the Petitions. However, he submits that some directions be issued to the learned trial Judge to decide the application for appointment of Court Commissioner expeditiously.

¶30

Learned trial Judge is directed to decide the application for appointment of Court Commissioner as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of six weeks from today.

¶31

Both these writ petitions are disposed of with clarification

¶32

as aforesaid.

¶33

( M.S.SONAK, J. )

Milind Vishnupanth Kulkarni and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Collector and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Milind Vishnupanth Kulkarni and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra through Collector 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. Yashwant Anant Patil and Ors. Vs Shri. Pandurang Dharma Madhavi and Ors.

Mrs. Aarti Vijay Menon Vs Mr. Vijay Satyan Menon

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

M/S. B. G. Shirke Construction Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Managing Director Shri. Vijay Baburao Shirke Vs Shri. Bhagwan Dyanu Thorat and Ors.

Jagannath Bhau Bhavake Vs Ayub Lal Mutalwali Decd Thru Lr

Hanmant Bandu Patil Vs Shankar Bhau Patil and Ors.