Disposed

Abdul Ahad Mohd. Ismail and Another v. a. Sahebrao Hari Ptil and Others

Bombay HC4 Jan 2024CAS/909/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal over an execution application pending since 2006 was disposed of by consent: respondents permitted to amend the Regular Durkhast to correct the suit property description per the 1991 suit and decree; the judgment dated 30 July 2010 and appellate order dated 30 December 2013 were quashed and set aside, and the executing court directed to decide the application within three months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Abdul Ahad Mohd. Ismail and Another Vs a. Sahebrao… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

903-SA-127-2014.doc

¶2

Harish

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

SECOND APPEAL NO.127 OF 2014

¶5

Abdul Ahad Mohd. Ismail & Anr. ...Appellants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Sahebrao Hari Patil & Ors. ...Respondents

¶8

WITH

¶9

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.335 OF 2014 IN

¶10

SECOND APPEAL NO.127 OF 2014

¶11

Abdul Ahad Mohd. Ismail & Anr. ...Applicants

¶12

Versus

¶13

Sahebrao Hari Patil & Ors. ...Respondents

¶14

WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.909 OF 2014 IN

¶15

SECOND APPEAL NO.127 OF 2014

¶16

Abdul Ahad Mohd. Ismail & Anr. ...Applicants Versus

¶17

Sahebrao Hari Patil & Ors. ...Respondents

¶18

Mr. R. S. Apte, Sr. Advocate, i/b Mr. Mateen A. R. Shaikh a/w Ms. Afrin Khan for the Appellants/Applicants.

¶19

Mr. Prafulla B. Shah a/w Mr. Gunjan Shah i/b Mr. Kayval P. Shah for the Respondents.

¶20

CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : JANUARY 4, 2024

903-SA-127-2014.doc

P. C. :

At the outset, learned counsel for the Appellants and the Respondents submits that the respective parties are present in Court and the submissions are made on their instructions.

¶25

The Appeal can be disposed of in view of the consensus arrived at between the learned counsel for the parties that the Regular Durkhast No. 27 of 2006 will be amended by the Respondents to correct the description of the suit property therein accordance with the description of the suit property given in Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of 1991 and in the decree passed on 2^nd January, 2006.

¶26

Mr. Apte, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Appellants on instructions, submits that the Appellants stand by the statement which has been recorded during the hearing of the application below Exhibit 23 in execution proceeding, which finds place in paragraph No. 9 of the Judgment dated 30^th July, 2010.

¶27

In view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the matter. The Respondents are permitted to amend the Execution Application to correct the description of the suit property in accordance with the description given in the Suit and Decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 268 of

¶28

¶29

903-SA-127-2014.doc

¶30

The amendment to be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of uploading of the present order. Executing Court to thereafter consider the Execution Application in accordance with law and on its own merits.

¶31

Subject to the submission recorded of the learned Senior Advocate, on instructions, as regards the statement made in paragraph No. 9 of the Judgment dated 30^th July 2010, the Judgment dated 30^th July, 2010 and the order of the Appellate Court dated 30^th December, 2013 are quashed and set aside.

¶32

As the Execution Application has been pending since the year 2006 in Suit of the year 1991, the Executing Court is requested to decide the Execution Application expeditiously and in any event within a period of three months after the amendment to the Execution Application being carried out by the Respondent.

¶33

Second Appeal stands disposed of in the above terms

¶34

In view of this order the Civil Applications do not survive for consideration and the same are also disposed of.

¶35

(SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. )

¶36

Abdul Ahad Mohd. Ismail and Another v. a. Sahebrao Hari Ptil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Abdul Ahad Mohd. Ismail and Another v. a. Sahebrao Hari Ptil and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri.Gangadhar Alias Gangaram Shankar Shinde Vs Yamunabai Punja Sahane

Vasant Krishna Tawati(D/H) Smt. Vaishali Vasant Tawate Vs Smt. Radhabai Purshottam Tawate (D/H) and Anr.

Mr.Vijay Dnyanoba Sonawane Vs Smt. Kamal Mahadeo Sonawane and Anr.

Kamlesh Vashdev Laungani Vs Namrata Kamlesh Laungani

Abdul Ahad Mohd. Ismail and Another Vs a. Sahebrao Hari Ptil and Others

Akbar Latif Yakub Shaikh and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.