A writ petition challenged an order directing the petitioner to deposit arrears for vacant possession. The learned Judge requested the Court of Small Causes to adjourn the suit to allow time for compliance.
The Court requested the Court of Small Causes, Mumbai to adjourn the suit till 20th February, 2023.
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.
903 wp 496.2023.doc
Dusane
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.496 OF 2023
Prabodh Prakash Shenai …Petitioner through POA Prakash Raghunath Shenai
V/s.
BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE
Digitally signed by BHALCHANDRA GOPAL DUSANE Date: 2023.01.16 11:44:40 +0530
Haridas Bakaram Kakade …Respondent
Mr. Prakash Raghunath Shenai, Petitioner present.
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATE: 13th JANUARY, 2023
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Prakash Raghunath Shenai, the Petitioner who is
appearing in-person.
2. The impugned order is dated 5th December, 2022 passed
by the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes at Mumbai (Bandra Branch), below Exhibit-1 in R.A.D. Suit No. 120 of 2014. By the impugned order, the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes directed the Plaintiff i.e. the Petitioner to comply with the common order passed below Exhibit Nos.56 and 58 by depositing the entire arrears in Court on or before next date without fail, otherwise the Suit will be disposed of accordingly.
1
903 wp 496.2023.doc
3. Perusal of the impugned order dated 5th December, 2022 shows that by the order dated 15th November 2018 passed below Exhibit Nos. 56 and 58, the learned Judge of the Court of Small Causes directed the Plaintiff to deposit the arrears of compensation at the rate of Rs.36,000/- per month from 1st June, 2014 till the vacant possession of suit premises was handed over to the Defendant, within one month, failing which the Suit was liable to be dismissed under Order XXXIX, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
4. The said order was challenged by the Plaintiff in this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 4930 of 2017, however, the said Writ Petition was rejected.
5. The S.L.P. challenging the said order was also dismissed. Therefore, it is clear that the order 15th November, 2018 passed below Exhibit Nos. 56 and 58 has attained finality.
6. By the impugned order, the learned Judge has directed the Plaintiff to comply with the said order passed below Exhibit Nos. 56 and 58, which has been confirmed upto the Supreme Court. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in passing the impugned order.
7. However, at this stage the Petitioner states that the next date in the R.A.D. Suit No. 120 of 2014 is on 19th January, 2023.
2
903 wp 496.2023.doc
The Petitioner states that if some time is given, he will comply with the order passed below Exhibit Nos. 56 and 58.
8. In view of above submission, although I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order, the learned Judge, Court of Small Causes, Mumbai is requested to adjourn the Suit till 20th February, 2023.
9. Subject to above, the Writ Petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)
3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the order directing the petitioner to deposit arrears in the maintenance suit.
Whether the suit in the Court of Session should be adjourned to allow the petitioner time to comply with the deposit order.
Prabodh Prakash Shenai
Bhalchandra Gopal Dusane
Haridas Bakaram Kakade
Madhav J. Jamdar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
