Surekha Suresh Salunkhe Since Deceasd through Her Legalheirs Vs Jayant Tukaram Bhosale

6 wp 5086-21=.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 5086 OF 2021

¶4

SNEHA NITIN

¶5

CHAVAN

¶6

Digitally signed by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2021.09.06 17:44:13 +0530

¶7

Smt. Surekha Suresh Salunkhe
since deceased through her
legal heirs Mrs. Nutan Arun Chavan
and Ors... Petitioners
 V/s.
Mr. Jayant Tukaram Bhosale ..Respondent

¶8

Ms. Vishakha Pandit i/b Avinash Fatangare for the Petitioners.

¶9

CORAM : C.V. BHADANG, J.

¶10

DATE : 06 SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶11

P.C.

¶12

1.The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 14
February 2021 passed below Exh. 92 by the Executing Court in
Regular Darkhast No. 30 of 2004. The Petitioner are the legal heirs
of original Defendant No.1 Surekha Salunkhe (since deceased).
Respondent Jayant Bhosale along with seven others had filed
Regular Civil Suit No. 57 of 1997 against late Surekha Salunkhe and
others for partition and separate possession in respect of land
bearing Survey No. 2/1 admeasuring 0.33.11 H. situated at village
Revas, Taluka Alibag and the house property bearing House No. 399
(old house No. 305) of grampanchayat Revas.

¶13

Sneha Chavan page 1 of 4

¶14

6 wp 5086-21=.doc

¶15

2.The learned Trial Court by a Judgment and Decree dated 31
October 1998 has partly decreed the suit to the extent of granting
1/3rd share in the agricultural land. The learned Trial Court,
however, refused to grant a share in the house property. This was
challenged by the plaintiffs in Civil Appeal No.173 of 1998. The
learned District Judge at Alibaug by a Judgment and Order dated 28
July 2004 has allowed the appeal and granted the share in the
house property also as set out in the said Judgment. The petitioners
Surekha Salunkhe and Nutan Salunkhe have challenged the said
decree before this Court in Second Appeal (ST) No. 3511 of 2017
which is pending. The execution application is filed for execution of
the said decree.

¶16

3.It appears that by an order dated 05 November 2016 below
Exh. 85, the Executing Court directed issuance of the possession
warrant in respect of room No. 11 and 12 as shown in the map
annexed to the application. The Petitioner filed application Exh. 92
on 30 January 2017 for condonation of delay in filing application,
Exh.93 to set aside the said order dated 05 January 2016 passed
below Exh. 85. It appears that the Executing Court heard both these
applications and by impugned order dated 14 February 2020 has
rejected the application Exh. 92.

¶17

6 wp 5086-21=.doc

¶18

4.I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioners. Perused
record. The record discloses that the application Exh.85 seeking
possession of room Nos. 11 and 12 was filed on 28 December 2015.
The Executing Court had recorded that there was no reply filed to
the said application by the Judgment Debtor. Such orders were
passed on 20 January 2016 and 23 March 2016. After this,
application Exh. 85 was decided on 05 November 2016 directing
issuance of possession warrant in respect of room Nos. 11 and 12.
The record further discloses that the possession warrant was
executed as per the report/panchnama of the bailiff dated 11
January 2017. The possession receipt is shown to be signed by the
Judgment Debtor No.1. It can thus be seen that the part of the
decree pertaining to the house/residential property in respect of
room Nos. 11 and 12 has already been executed/satisfied on 11
January 2017. The execution pertaining to the agricultural land is
said to be pending. It is significant to note that the Petitioner had
failed to file a reply since 28 December 2015 till on 05 November
2016. The Petitioners have not shown any acceptable reason for
their failure to file the reply.

¶19

6 wp 5086-21=.doc

¶20

5. In that view of the matter, I do not find that case for interference in the impugned order is made out in the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

C.V. BHADANG, J.

¶22

Sneha Chavan page 4 of 4

Surekha Suresh Salunkhe Since Deceasd through Her Legalheirs v. Jayant Tukaram Bhosale

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surekha Suresh Salunkhe Since Deceasd through Her Legalheirs v. Jayant Tukaram Bhosale

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

Jagdevi Sunil Patil and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ashok Dayaram Sakpal Vs the State of Maharashtra

Indus Yuvraj Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mr. Narottam Jivraj Suchde and Ors. Vs Mr. Vishal Shaymsundar Kalantri

Bharat Bondre Vs Rajaram K. Shinde (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs.

Ramchandra Akaram Bhosale Vs Balasaheb Bapu Patil