Dismissed

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

Bombay HC21 Feb 2023WP/8903/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Writ Petition No. 8903 of 2019 disposed of the petition without interference against three reasoned orders of the Trial Court in R.C.S. No. 62 of 2011, directing the lower court to decide the pending suit within eight months.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed without interference in impugned orders. Trial Court directed to dispose R.C.S. No. 62 of 2011 within eight months.

Komal @ Kajal Duryodhan Jadhav Vs Shri… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

31.WP.8903.19.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 8903 OF 2019

¶6

Komal @ Kajal Duryodhan Jadhav .. Petitioner
 Versus
Duryodhan Dadu Jadhav and Ors...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Anilkumar K. Patil, Advocate for Petitioner

¶8

Mr. Kuldeep U. Nikam, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3, 7 to 9

¶9

CORAM:MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE:FEBRUARY 21, 2023.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

1. The present Writ Petition takes exception to the three orders viz:

¶12

i. Order passed below Exh.75 in R.C.S. No. 62 of 2011 dated 03.01.2019 at page No. 42 of the Writ Petition whereby the said Application for setting aside the order of no WS and ex-parte order has been set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.1,000/- to the Plaintiff;

¶13

ii. Order passed below Exh.83 dated 25.03.2019 at page

¶14

No.50 of the Writ Petition whereby the learned Trial
Court allowed the application for considering the delay
on the part of the Defendants to pay the cost, awarded
by the above order and directed Defendants to pay
costs of Rs.500/- to the Legal Aid fund and

¶15

1 of 3

¶16

31.WP.8903.19.doc

¶17

iii.Order passed below Exh.82 dated 25.03.2019 at page

¶18

No. 53 of the Writ Petition, rejecting the application
which was filed by Plaintiff for invocation of criminal
action against the person who had appended his
signature on the Vakalatnama at Exh.38.

¶19

2. The suit proceedings being R.C.S. No. 62 of 2011 have remained pending since long. In so far as orders passed below Exh.75 and 83 are concerned it is seen that they are reasoned orders and in that view of the matter no interference is called for therein.

¶20

3. In respect of order passed below Exh.82 is concerned, it is seen
that the application made therein is premature and any such criminal
action can be invoked subject to the final decision in the suit. Liberty
to that extent is always available to the Plaintiff to file appropriate
proceedings in the appropriate Court of law.

¶21

4. Mr. Nikam in his usual fairness has taken me through the impugned orders and urged to upheld them, except the order passed below Exh.82.

¶22

5. After considering all 3 orders, I do not find any reason to interfere as the same have been passed after hearing the parties and give reasons and adequate findings.

¶23

6. At the joint request of both the learned Advocates, the learned

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

31.WP.8903.19.doc

¶26

Trial Court is requested by this Court to dispose of R.C.S. No. 62 of

¶27

2011within a period of 8 months from today.

¶28

7. Writ Petition is disposed.

¶29

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

¶30

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALISATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: KILAJE 2023.02.2213:44:58 +0530

¶31

3 of 3

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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

Mr. Pradip Krishna Jadhav Vs Mrs. Aditi Anil More and Ors.

Suneet Ramniklal Shah Vs Rajesh Ramniklal Shah

M/S. Krishna Construction Company and Anr. Vs M/S. Siddharaj Builders and Developers and Ors.

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.

Roha Municipal Council and Ors. Vs Mansi Mandar Date and Ors.