Disposed

Prakash Vasudeo Rakh and Another v. Laxmikant Sonajirao Deshmukh and Another

Bombay HC2 Aug 2023WP/5180/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed against an appellate court order in a civil suit regarding suit property. The single judge held no interference was called for and directed the Trial Court to implement the appeal court's directions within four weeks to get a survey and Commissioner's report before deciding the application.

What did the court decide?

Trial Court directed to implement Appellate Court directions within four weeks and decide application de novo after receiving Commissioner's report.

Prakash Vasudeo Rakh and Another Vs Laxmikant… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

918-WP-5180-2022

¶2

{1}

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.5180 OF 2022

¶5

Prakash Vasudeo Rakh And Another Versus

¶6

Petitioners

¶7

Laxmikant Sonajirao Deshmukh And Another Respondents

¶8

Mr. Bhargav Kulkarni, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar h/f. Mr. S.P. Pandav, Advocate for respondent No. 1.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] DATE : 2nd AUGUST, 2023

¶10

ORDER :

¶11

Petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by learned Principal District Judge, Beed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 13/2021, thereby partly allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Suit No 5/2020, by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Patoda.

¶12

Having heard the learned advocate for the petitioners and learned advocate for the respondents and on going through the memo of writ petition, annexures and the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is called for in the order impugned in the present petition.

¶13

The Appellate Court has directed the Trial Court to get the survey of the suit property done and to call

¶14

Bhagyawant Punde

¶15

{2} 918-WP-5180-2022

¶16

Commissioner’s report and after receipt of survey report, the Trial Court is given liberty to decide the application Exhibit-5 de novo, or if the parties are willing and agreed, then to decide the suit finally. Respondents are also directed not to obstruct peaceful possession of the appellants over the suit property till the order is passed below Exhibit-5.

¶17

It is informed at the bar that the exercise directed by the Appellate Court is not carried out till today.

¶18

In that view of the matter, the Trial Court shall implement the directions given in clause 3 in the order of Appellate Court. The same shall be done within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. After receipt of Commissioner’s report, Trial Court shall decide application Exhibit-5 de novo, without being influenced by the observations of the first Appellate Court.

¶19

Directions in clause 4 of the Appellate Court’s order shall be subject to the final decision of application Exhibit-5.

¶20

With these observations, writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

[NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.]

¶22

Bhagyawant Punde

Prakash Vasudeo Rakh and Another v. Laxmikant Sonajirao Deshmukh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prakash Vasudeo Rakh and Another v. Laxmikant Sonajirao Deshmukh and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The President Yashwantrao Chavan Shikshak Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. and Others Vs Rohidas Dattaram Shinde

Gopal Ishwardas Jakhotiya and Another Vs Vijaykumar Ranulal Jain and Others

Vidhyadhar Bansidhar Dhapate Vs State of Maharashtra Thro Collector Beed and Others

Angad Maroti Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Somnath Trimbak Balme and Another Vs Vitthal Gangadhar Balme and Others

Sanjay Bhikaji Gaikwad and Others Vs Rambhau Bhikaji Gaikwad