Dismissed

Vincent Alfred Kunder Decd. Thr. Lhrs Doreen Lawrence and Ors. v. Ellington Peter Anthony Carvalho Decd. Thr. Lhrs Gwendolyn Mary Demetrios Stephen and Ors.

Bombay HC27 Jan 2023WP/1106/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by a judgment debtor challenging an order correcting a typographical mistake in a succession decree regarding property premise numbers. High Court held no interference warranted as respondent was occupying the corrected premises.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vincent Alfred Kunder Decd. Thr. Lhrs Doreen… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

911 wp 1106.23.doc

¶2

Dusane

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.1106 OF 2023

¶5

Vincent Alfred Kunder …Petitioners (since deceased) thru LRs Doreen Lawrence & Ors.

¶6

V/s.

¶7

BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE

¶8

Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2023.01.27 18:18:45 +0530

¶9

Ellington Peter Anthony Carvalho …Respondent (since deceased) thru LRs Gwendolyn Mary Demetrios Stephen & Ors.

¶10

Mr. Sumedh S. Modak for Petitioners.

¶11

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE: 27^th JANUARY, 2023

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. Heard Mr. Modak, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners.

¶14

2. The Petitioner is the judgment debtor. By the present petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the legality and validity of the order dated 8^th July 2022 passed below Exhibit 8 in Execution Application (Stamp) No. 602 of 2019 in R.A.E. Suit No. 265/544 of 2007.

¶15

¶16

911 wp 1106.23.doc

¶17

3. By the impugned order, the premises No.95 were allowed to be corrected as premises No. 96. It is an admitted position that the judgment-debtor was occupying premises No. 96. The same is also clear from the title of the present Writ Petition. Even in the title of the plaint, address of the Defendant i.e. Judgment-debtor is mentioned as premises No. 96.

¶18

4. By typographical mistake, the premises No.96 are mentioned as premises No. 95 in the decree. It is the only contention of Mr. Modak, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the earlier application seeking same relief was rejected. In fact the earlier application was rejected with a direction to file separate Miscellaneous Civil Application or Marji Application before the Court, who has passed the decree in RAE Suit No. 265/544 of 2007 on 1^st April 2019. It appears that according to that direction, the Respondent i.e. decreeholder filed Marji Application No.4 of 2022 in RAE Suit No. 265/544/2007. However, in the meanwhile by the impugned order, the learned Judge, Small Causes Court, Mumbai passed order below Exhibit 8 in Execution Application (Stamp) No.602 of 2019 and allowed the decree holder to carry out the said correction by correcting premises No. 95 as premises No. 96.

¶19

¶20

911 wp 1106.23.doc

¶21

5. The said order has been passed on 8^th July 2022. Thereafter as the said order has been passed on 8^th July 2022, the decree-holder withdrew the application filed bearing Marji Application No. 4 of 2022 as the order is already passed dated 8^th July 2022.

¶22

6. The present Writ Petition is filed on 4^th January 2023 after the decree holder withdrew his application bearing Marji Application No. 4 of 2022 on 19^th November 2022.

¶23

7. It is admitted position that the Petitioner is judgment debtor. It is clear that the judgment debtor is taking advantage of typographical mistake, which has occurred in the decree. In any case, by the impugned order what has been done is to allow the change of premises as premises No. 96 instead of premises No. 95. It is admitted position that the decree holder is staying in the premises bearing No. 96. In fact the title of the suit as well as of this petition shows that the judgment debtor is staying in premises bearing No. 96. However, in the decree by typographical mistake, it has been mentioned as 95. Therefore, this is not a case where interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶24

¶25

911 wp 1106.23.doc

¶26

of India is warranted. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed.

¶27

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

¶28

Vincent Alfred Kunder Decd. Thr. Lhrs Doreen Lawrence and Ors. v. Ellington Peter Anthony Carvalho Decd. Thr. Lhrs Gwendolyn Mary Demetrios Stephen and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vincent Alfred Kunder Decd. Thr. Lhrs Doreen Lawrence and Ors. v. Ellington Peter Anthony Carvalho Decd. Thr. Lhrs Gwendolyn Mary Demetrios Stephen and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudesh Sharad Redij and Others Vs Sunil Shankar Redij

Sudhir Puroshottam Khodake Vs Shashikumar Vishnu Khodake(Since Decd.Thr.Lrs) Abhay Shashikumar Khodake and Ors.

Sudhir Puroshottam Khodake Vs Shashikumar Vishnu Khodake (Deceased Thru Lrs)

Anilkumar Harjivandas Parekh (Since Deceased) Thr. Lrs.Nikesh Anilbhai Parekh Vs Smt. Sushilaben Subodh Shah and Ors.

Mr. Peter Fernandes (Since Decd.) through His Lrs. Vs Mr. Pravin Brahmadeo Pandey and Ors.

A.C. and R Appliances Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Gp and Ors.