Partly allowed

Dnyaneshwar Janardan Koli v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Dec 2024IA/14574/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge bench set aside an impugned order that dismissed a motion. The court restored the motion to file pending deposit of costs, revived ad-interim protection, and directed strict adherence to a deadline.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; motion restored pending deposit of Rs. 25,000/- costs; ad-interim protection revived; strict direction against adjournments.

Dnyaneshwar Janardan Koli vs the State of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

904 AO-790-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

Digitally signed by HUSENBASHA HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN RAHAMAN NADAF NADAF Date: 2024.12.04 18:57:40 +0530

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 790 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 14574 OF 2024

¶5

Dnyaneshwar Janardan Koli ...Appellant Versus The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ...Respondents

¶6

¶7

Adv. Pradeep J. Thorat i/b. Adv. Megha R. Shigavan, for Appellant. Mr. A.R. Patil, Addl. G.P. for Respondent/State.

¶8

¶9

CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J. DATE : 4^th DECEMBER, 2024

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

The appeal is filed challenging the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 passed by City Civil Court at Dindoshi in Notice of Motion No. 609 of 2015. By the said impugned order, a motion filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff for restraining the Respondent/State from implementing the impugned notices dated 22.11.2012 and orders dated 28.02.2013, was rejected.

¶12

Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that on 13.08.2024, a new Advocate had filed vakalatnama on behalf of the Appellant and the application below Ex.11 was preferred seeking adjournment simplicitor. He submitted that while dealing with the adjournment application, the Trial Court has rejected the main motion itself. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits on

Page 1 of 3

Husen

904 AO-790-2024.doc

instructions from the Appellant/Plaintiff No.1a, which instructions would also bind Respondent Nos. 4 & 5 - co-Plaintiff Nos.1b & 1c, that the Plaintiffs will proceed with the hearing of the motion on merits and will not seek any further adjournment.

¶17

Learned Addl. G.P. on behalf of Respondent/State submitted that the status quo was granted in the motion, since 08.04.2013 and the Plaintiffs are delaying the matter, for one reason or the other which is also recorded in the impugned order. He submits that the Plaintiffs be put heavy costs, if opportunity is to be given.

¶18

I have perused the application below Ex.11, which was filed for seeking adjournment. It appears that by the impugned order motion itself is dismissed.

¶19

In that view of the matter, in order to afford one last opportunity to the Appellant (Plaintiffs), following order is passed disposing of the Appeal from Order and pending interim application.

¶20

(a) The impugned order is set aside.

¶21

(b) Subject to the Appellant depositing costs of Rs.25,000/- to High Court Legal Services Authority within a period of 2 weeks from today, the concerned motion is restored to the file for hearing, in accordance with law, on its own merits and ad-interim protection which was operating during the pendency of motion, is revived and will continue during the hearing of the motion.

Page 2 of 3

Husen

904 AO-790-2024.doc

(c) The Appellant and Respondent Nos.4 & 5, who are coPlaintiffs with the Appellant, are directed not to seek any adjournment for hearing of the motion.

¶26

(d) It is clarified that if the costs are not deposited or if an adjournment is sought by the Plaintiffs on the next date, as may be fixed by the Trial Court, the motion will stand dismissed without further reference to either Trial Court or this Court.

¶27

All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed copy of this order.

¶28

Page 3 of 3

¶29

Husen

Dnyaneshwar Janardan Koli v. the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dnyaneshwar Janardan Koli v. the State of Maharashtra 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ramesh Shivram Pala vs Kashinath Sagarmal Gupta (Deceased) the. Smt. Ushadevi Kashinath Gupta and Others

Sarita Ranjit Patil vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Abdul Mohamed Hanifa Ahmed vs Noor Mohd. Sayed Chand Shaikh and Anr.

Revati Moreshwar Bhandari and Another vs Yogesh Anant Sawant

Shri. Nitin Marutrao Kale vs Shri. Dilip Bajirao Malgunde and Others

Smt. Shashikala Ashok Magdum and Another vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai L-Ward