Allowed

Satish Kisan Punde v. Fulabai Baban Punde and Ors.

Bombay HC22 Feb 2023WP/5406/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the sugarcane factory to deposit pending payments into the Trial Court registry instead of withholding them. The court also directed the Trial Court to dispose of the suit within eight months and to disapply its previous incorrect order.

What did the court decide?

Factory to deposit payment in Trial Court registry; suit to be disposed of within 8 months; previous order dated 22.02.2022 modified.

Satish Kisan Punde Vs Fulabai Baban Punde and Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

10a.wp.5406.22.doc

¶2

Ajay

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 5406 OF 2022

¶6

Satish Kisan Punde ..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Fulabai Baban Punde and Ors. ..Respondents

¶9

Mr. Prabhakar M. Jadhav, Advocate for Petitioner.

¶10

Mr. Sachin Deokar a/w. Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶11

Mr. Shekhar Mane, Advocate for Respondent Nos.4 to 8.

¶12

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:FEBRUARY 22, 2023.

¶13

P.C.:

¶14

1. Heard Mr. Jadhav, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and

¶15

Mr. Deokar, learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶16

2. Perused the impugned order below Exhibit-36 in Regular

¶17

Civil Suit No.229 of 2020 passed by the learned Trial Court. The
Application filed by the Plaintiff seeks a direction to the Sugarcane
Karkhana to stay the release of payment of sugarcane which was taken
away by the Karkhana. The proceedings in the substantive suit pertain
to cancellation of relinquishment deed as also partition, declaration
and perpetual injunction of the ancestral properties which are claimed
by Plaintiffs and Defendant Nos.1 and 2 (i.e. Respondent Nos.1 to 3

¶18

and Respondent Nos.4 and 5), which includes claim to the monies to

¶19

Corrected / Modified order as per Speaking to the Minutes of order dated 24.02.2023. 1 of

¶20

¶21

10a.wp.5406.22.doc

¶22

be paid by the Karkhana in respect of sugarcane.

¶23

3. The limited question before the learned Trial Court in Application below Exhibit-36 was with respect to the payment to be arrived from the Sugarcane Karkhana and its appropriation. The Plaintiff objected on the ground that in view of the relinquishment deed and the Plaintiff having claimed 1/5 share cannot be granted. Without having a trial with respect to the suit proceedings, the learned Trial Court prima facie came to the conclusion that it could not decided as to who was in actual possession of the agricultural land from where the sugarcane was taken away by the Karkhana, and also who had cultivated the same. In view thereof, the learned Trial Court directed the Sugarcane Karkhana to withhold the payment and hence Petitioner (Defendant No.4) being aggrieved has approached this Court by the present Writ Petition.

¶24

4. After hearing the learned Advocates for some time and perusing the record, Mr. Deokar has made a fair suggestion to the Court considering the dispute involved in the present proceedings. He urged the Court to direct that the said payment be deposited by the concerned Sugarcane Karkhana in the Trial Court and the said deposit shall be subject to the final outcome of the suit proceedings. Mr. Jadhav, learned Advocate for the Petitioner (Defendant No.4) also agrees to the same.

¶25

Corrected / Modified order as per Speaking to the Minutes of order dated 24.02.2023. 2 of

¶26

¶27

10a.wp.5406.22.doc

¶28

5. Hence, the following order:-

¶29

(i) The Vyankatesh Sugar Factory, Jategaon, Taluka Shirur is directed to deposit the sugarcane payment within a period of four weeks from today before the learned Trail Court in Regular Civil Suit No.229 of 2020;

¶30

(ii) The learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of pending Regular Civil Suit No.229 of 2020 within a period of 8 months from today;

¶31

(iii) The learned Trial Court is directed not to grant unnecessary adjournments to the parties unless absolutely necessary;

¶32

(iv) The learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any observations and findings made in the impugned order dated 22.02.2022;

¶33

(v) The impugned order dated 22.02.2022 stands modified to the above extent.

¶34

6. Mr. Jadhav would submit that Petitioner (Defendant No.4) has also filed Application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 before the learned Trial Court. Considering the above directions, the learned Trial Court shall dispose of the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶35

Corrected / Modified order as per Speaking to the Minutes of order dated 24.02.2023. 3 of

¶36

¶37

10a.wp.5406.22.doc

¶38

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

¶39

 [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶40

Digitally signed by AJAY TRAMBAK AJAY UGALMUGALE TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE Date: 2023.02.24 19:03:53 +0530

¶41

Corrected / Modified order as per Speaking to the Minutes of order dated 24.02.2023. 4 of

¶42

Satish Kisan Punde v. Fulabai Baban Punde and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Kisan Punde v. Fulabai Baban Punde 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

Yashwant Balu Patil Vs Housabai Krushna Patil and Ors.

Ganesh Jagannath Bedse Vs the Recovery Officer G P Parsik Co. Op Bank Ltd. and Anr.

Komal @ Kajal Duryodhan Jadhav Vs Shri. Duryodhan Dadu Jadhav and Ors.

Dattatray Suresh Parande Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Daulat Bhagwant Dinde Vs Namdeo Bhagwant Dinde

Daulat Bhagwanta Dinde Vs Namdev Bhagwant Dinde