A writ petition applicant sought to review an order granting petition disposal, arguing non-compliance with auside-court compromise terms and causing a 1211-day delay. The bench rejected the application, finding non-performance is not a ground for review.
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.
12753.23ca.odt
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.12753 OF 2023 IN WP/2971/2010 WITH CA/6879/2020 IN CA/12193/2019 IN WP/2971/2010
SUMANBAI GULAB SHEJWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER, NASHIK DIVISION, NASHIK AND OTHERS
Mr Satyajeet S. Dixit Advocate for Applicants; Mr V. M. Kagne, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE : 27th October, 2023
PER COURT:
order :-
“1. The Applicants are before this Court alleging that the Non-Applicant Nos.5-A to 5-F, 6 and 7 have played a fraud and have not complied with the terms of the compromise, which were arrived at ‘outside the Court’ and tendered before this Court for seeking disposal of Writ Petition No.2971/2010. On these grounds, the Applicants pray that the Court should recall the order dated 10.10.2019. Delay of 1211 days is caused in filing the Civil Application.
2. The learned Advocate for the Applicants submits that he would research as to whether, there is any provision of law or any judicial pronouncement which would enable this Court to recall it’s order only because some of the parties to the compromise terms are not discharging their obligations under the settlement.
3. Stand over to 27.10.2023.”
12753.23ca.odt
(2)
he has not come across with any Judgment, which would assist him in support of his contention. He seeks some more time. A Special Bench is hearing this Civil Application. On the last date as well, he had sought time.
rejected. Needless to state, this order would not come in way of
12753.23ca.odt
(3)
the remedies available to the Applicants for seeking the execution of the compromise terms, as my be permissible in law.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
sjk
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the non-compliance by one party of compromise terms arranged outside the court constitutes a sufficient ground for recalling or reviewing the court order granting disposal of the writ petition
Sumanbai Gulab Shejwal and Others
Additional Commissioner, Nashik Division, Nashik and Others
Ravindra V. Ghuge
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
