The High Court of Bombay at Civil Appeal Jurisdiction dismissed Writ Petition No. 12669 of 2023 against an order by the Taluka Executive Magistrate relating to the execution of a judgment from 2013 in dispute No.218 of 2012.
The Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
20-WP-12669-2023.DOC
2023:BHC-AS:38905
Sonali
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12669 OF 2023
Hanumant Nivrutti Yadav…Petitioner
Versus
The District Magistrate and Collector, Solapur &…Respondents
Ors.
Mr. S. S. Panchpor a/w. S. S. Natu, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP, for the State.
Mr. Chinmay Patil i/b. DD Abhijit & Associates, for Respondent
Nos.4 and 5.
CORAMMADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED:20th DECEMBER 2023
PC:-
1. Heard Mr. Panchpor, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, Mrs. Nimbalkar, learned AGP appearing for the State
and Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.4 and
5.
2. The challenge in the present Writ Petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India is to the legality and validity of the
Page 1 of 2
20-WP-12669-2023.DOC
Order dated 3rd February 2023 passed by the Taluka Executive
Magistrate alias Tahsildar, Malshiras.
3.Mr. Panchpor, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner
raises several contentions including that the impugned Order is to
be passed by the District Magistrate.
4. However, the factual position on record shows that the said proceedings are taken out for the execution of the Judgment and Award dated 11th July 2013 passed in Dispute No.218 of 2012.
5. It is admitted position that the said Judgment and Award has
not been challenged. The Judgment and Award is of the year 2013
and not executed even after passage of more than 10 years.
6. Accordingly, no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
7. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however with no order as to costs.
(Madhav J. Jamdar, J.)
Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interference is warranted under Article 226 against the impugned order dated 3rd February 2023.
Whether the impugned order was validly passed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate alias Tahsildar, Malshiras.
Hanumant Nivrutti Yadav
The District Magistrate and Collector, Solapur
Madhav J. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court