Disposed

Dnyaneshwar Suryabhan Gade v. the Collector Ahmednagar and Others

Bombay HC11 Jan 2023WP/4151/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that since the Section 80 CPC notice was issued prior to the filing of the writ petition, the limitation period had passed and waived adjudication on the notice validity. The writ petition and associated civil application were disposed of. The interim status quo order was extended for two weeks for suit filing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and Civil Application disposed of. Status quo order extended for two weeks for suit filing.

Dnyaneshwar Suryabhan Gade Vs the Collector… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

31 WRIT PETITION NO.4151 OF 2017

¶4

DNYANESHWAR SURYABHAN GADE

¶5

VERSUS

¶6

THE COLLECTOR AHMEDNAGAR AND OTHERS

¶7

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Deepak D. Chaudhari
AGP for Respondent – State : Mr. S.S. Dande
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sudhir G. Bhalerao

¶8

WITH

¶9

CA/7570/2017 IN WP/4151/2017

¶10

 CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

¶11

 DATE : 11-01-2023

¶12

PER COURT :

¶13

.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶14

2.The order of the trial Court dated 10.03.2017 is

¶15

impugned in the present petition, whereby the trial Court refused to
waive the period of 60 days contemplated under Section 80 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶16

submits that a notice was received on 27.01.2017 from the
respondent for removal of the alleged encroachment, which was the
subject matter of the suit proposed to be filed by the petitioner. The
petitioner issued a notice under Section 80 of the CPC to the
respondent authority on 27.02.2017 and filed the application to
waive the period of 60 days and sought permission to file the suit

¶17

¶18

citing urgency in view of the notice dated 27.01.2017. Perused the
impugned order dated 10.03.2017. The trial Court has refused to
waive the period of 60 days on the ground that there is no title
document of the petitioner.

¶19

3.Without going into the validity of the observations made
in the impugned order dated 10.03.2017, the present petition can be
disposed of for the reason that the notice under Section 80 was issued
on 27.02.2017 and the period of 60 days is already over and as such
there is no impediment for the suit to be taken on record. The writ
petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶20

4.In view of disposal of the writ petition, Civil Application
stands disposed of.

¶21

5.By order dated 27.04.2017, status quo was granted by
this Court which the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to
continue till the filing of the suit. The said request is vehemently
objected by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground
that the petitioner has no title in respect of the subject properties
acquired by the respondent no.2.

¶22

¶23

6.Considering the fact that the status quo order has been

¶24

passed on 27.04.2017 and the respondent - authority had not
bothered to file any application for modifying the said order or
vacating the order of status-quo, at this stage, if the status quo order
is extended for a period of two weeks for filing of the suit, no
prejudice would be caused to the respondents.

¶25

7.Status quo granted by this Court vide order dated
27.04.2017 is extended for a period of two weeks from today for
filing of the suit. The trial Court to consider the application for
interim relief on its own merits and without being influenced by the
fact that the order of status quo has been running against the
respondents since the year 2017.

¶26

( SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. )

¶27

GGP

Dnyaneshwar Suryabhan Gade v. the Collector Ahmednagar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyaneshwar Suryabhan Gade v. the Collector Ahmednagar and Others

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

Saurabh Babasaheb Kale Vs Dnyaneshwar Babasaheb Shelke

Ankush Mansing Rathod Vs Majalgaon Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Sundar Nagar and Another

Jagdish Digambar Chaudhari Vs Vaishali Sudhir Patil and Others

Manohar Ramji Shirsat Umrekar Patil and Others Vs Sambhaji Ramji Shirsat Patil Umrekar and Others

Sanjay Rangnath Pawar Vs Dnyaneshwar Suryabhan Gade and Others

Pratap Singh Hansram Singh Chovhan Died Lrs Chandramohansingh Pratapsingh Chavan Vs Vasantrao Pralhadrao Mulavekar Died Lrs Chandrakant Laxmikant Mulavekar and Others