Disposed

Dattatraya Kondiba Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Feb 2023WP/1784/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an appellate order passed under the Mamlatdar Courts Act without notice to the Petitioners. The single judge held that an ex parte-style revision order was unsustainable, without prejudice to pending restoration of parties for a fresh hearing before passing an appropriate order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed, order dated 02.01.2023 quashed and set aside, matter remanded to Appellate Court for fresh hearing after hearing Petitioners.

Dattatraya Kondiba Pawar and Ors. Vs the State… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

45.WP.1784.23.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 1784 OF 2023

¶6

Dattatrya Kondiba Pawar and Ors. .. Petitioners
 Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugle, Advocate for Petitioners

¶8

Mr. S. H. Kankal, AGP for Respondent - State

¶9

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:FEBRUARY 17, 2023.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1. Heard Mr. Ugle, learned Advocate for Petitioners and Mr. Kankal, learned AGP for Respondent-State.

¶12

2. Present Writ Petition takes exception to the order dated 02.01.2023 at page No. 62 of the Petition passed by the learned SDO under the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 in Revision proceedings.

¶13

3. Mr. Ugle would submit that the order under Section 5 of the said

¶14

Act has been passed by the learned Tahasildar in favour of the
Petitioners, however by virtue of the impugned order the said order
has been upset without notice to the Petitioners. The said order thus
is solely unsustainable and cannot be countenanced. Hence the order
dated 02.01.2023 is quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded back
to the Appellate Court for a fresh hearing on the Revision proceedings.

¶15

1 of 2

¶16

45.WP.1784.23.doc

¶17

4. Needless to state that the pending Revision proceedings shall be heard after hearing the Petitioners and only thereafter appropriate order on the said application shall be passed.

¶18

5. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.

¶19

6. With the above directions, Writ Petition is disposed.

¶20

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶21

SONALI Digitally signedby SONALI SATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: 2023.02.18 KILAJE 15:31:30 +0530

¶22

2 of 2

Dattatraya Kondiba Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Kondiba Pawar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary 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

Raghu Hiru Mhaskar and Ors. Vs Rajendra Madhukar Joshi and Ors.

Pen Education Society and Anr. Vs Daya Kashinath Gadmule and Ors.

Shri. M.L. Sandbhor Vs Smt. Sulochana Walimbe (Decd) through Lrs. and Anr.

Manik Mulla Administrator of Tulsidas v Patel Pvt. Ltd. Vs Mr. J. S. Solomon the Administrator of Tulsidas v Patel Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Sachin Ananda Gole and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shahaji Shankar Deshmukh Vs Punjab Ramdas Salunkhe and Ors.