Quashed

Shri Narayan Krishna Narvekar and Anr. v. Shri Krishna Parvata Narvekar and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Oct 2023CAW/1443/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a stay order passed under Section 10 CPC because the underlying suit was settled by compromise, thereby extinguishing the basis for the stay. The court directed the trial court to decide the partition suit expeditiously.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 28th September 2016 granting stay under Section 10 CPC is quashed and set aside. The trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously.

Shri Narayan Krishna Narvekar and Anr. Vs Shri Krishna Parvata… — Partition | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

14-wp-3176-2017.doc

¶2

Nikita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.3176 OF 2017
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1443 OF 2019

¶5

IN

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.3176 OF 2017

¶7

Narayam Krishna Narvekar and Anr.… Petitioners

¶8

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE

¶9

Digitally signed byNIKITA KAILASDARADE Date: 2023.10.1718:42:21 +0530

¶10

V/s.

¶11

Krishna Parvata Narvekar and Ors.

¶12

… Respondents

¶13

Mr. Chetan G. Patil, for the Petitioners-Applicants.

¶14

CORAM :AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶15

DATED :OCTOBER 17 2023

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

1.By this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India,
the petitioners/ original plaintiffs are challenging order passed by
the Trial Court along with the application under Section 10 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

¶18

2.The petitioners filed Regular Civil Suit No.16 of 2012
seeking relief of partition and separate possession.

¶19

3.Before filing of Regular Civil Suit No.16 of 2012, the
respondent No.1 had filed Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2004, against
respondents Nos.2, 5, 6 and 7 for injunction and possession. The
Trial Court on 13th February 2012 decree the Regular Civil Suit
No.9 of 2004. Respondent No.6 filed Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of

¶20

¶21

14-wp-3176-2017.doc

¶22

2012.

¶23

4.During the pendency of the Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of
2012, respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 10 of
Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in Regular Civil Suit No.16 of 2012
contending that issues raised in Regular Civil Suit No.16 of 2012
were directly and substantially issued in previous suit bearing
Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2004.

¶24

5.The Trial Court by order dated 28th September 2016 allowed
the application, thereby granting stay to further proceedings of
Regular Civil Suit No.16 of 2012.

¶25

6.The petitioners, therefore, challenges the order of Trial Court
by present petition. This Court by order dated 11th July 2018
issued notice for final disposal to respondents. The office remarks
dated 11th October 2023, indicate that notices of respondent Nos. 1
to 9 are duly served as per Bailiff’s report. Learned advocate for
the petitioner has filed additional affidavit annexing copy of
compromise entered into between the appellants and respondents
in Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of 2012.

¶26

7.Perusal of the compromise in Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of
2012 dated 12th October 2012, it appears that the parties to the
earlier suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit No.9 of 2004, have admittedly
resolved their dispute. Therefore, Regular Civil Appeal No.20 of
2012 stands disposed of. Once the earlier proceedings stands
disposed of, the basis of filing of application under Section 10 of
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is extinguished. Therefore, the
impugned order can no longer continue. Hence following order:

¶27

¶28

14-wp-3176-2017.doc

¶29

8.The impugned order dated 28th September 2016 passed in |
Regular Civil Suit No.16 of 2012 below Exhibit-124 is quashed and
set aside.

¶30

9.The Trial Court shall decide the Regular Civil Suit No.16 of
2012 on its own merits.

¶31

10. The writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶32

11. Considering the pendency of the suit from 2007, the Trial Court is directed to decide the suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶33

12. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition civil application
is rendered infructuous. The same stands disposed of.

¶34

(AMIT BORKAR, J.)

¶35

Shri Narayan Krishna Narvekar and Anr. v. Shri Krishna Parvata Narvekar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Narayan Krishna Narvekar and Anr. v. Shri Krishna Parvata Narvekar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chetan Badani Sole Prop M/S Veedhi International Vs M/S. Ledvance Private Limited

Chetan Badani Vs M/S. Ledvance Pvt. Ltd. ( Earlier Known as Osram India Pvt. Ltd. )

Manesh Rajnikant Doshi Vs Rashmi Pankaj Keshariya

Shri Rajanikant Pandurang Mayekar Vs Prakash Nayandev Kamble and Ors.

Late Mr. Tulshiram S/O. Shantaram Bhoir (Dec.) Thr. Lrs. Sunita Wd/O. Tulshiram Bhoir and Anr. Vs Mr Pralhad S/O. Raghunath Bhoir and Ors.

Smt. Sakhubai Chandar Patil and Ors. Vs Shri Shankar Eknath Patil