Disposed

Nitin Vijaykumar Chavan and Anr. v. Ghamanabai Fulsingh Chavan Thru Sunil Fulsingh Chavan and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Aug 2024WP/12002/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged orders under the Mamlatdar Courts Act passed on the contesting respondent's Section 5 application, contending absence of cause of action, non-compliance with Section 7 verification, and existence of an alternate road. The court found an arguable prima facie case and stayed the impugned order and execution notice till further hearing.

What did the court decide?

Stay of the impugned order and communication/notice dated 22.07.2024 till next date of hearing; notice issued to respondents, returnable on 25.09.2024.

Nitin Vijaykumar Chavan and Anr. vs Ghamanabai Fulsingh… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

13-WP-12002-24.doc

¶2

S.S.Kilaje

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 12002 OF 2024

¶6

Nitin Vijaykumar Chavan and Anr. … Petitioners Versus Ghamanabai Fulsingh Chavan and Ors. ... Respondents

¶7

Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Smt. V.R.Raje, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶8

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATED : 26^th AUGUST, 2024.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Heard.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that application filed by the contesting respondent before the Tahasildar under Section 5 of

¶12

Mamlatdar Courts Act does not spell out the cause of action. It is his submission that limitation period of six months has been provided within which such application needs to be filed and absence of cause of action does not satisfy requirements of Section 7 of the Act. According to him in such circumstances, it was obligatory on the part of Tahasildar to verify the said application and to make endorsement to that effect, which has not been done herein.

¶13

It is his submission that these issues were raised before the Tahasildar as well as before the Appellate Authority which are not

1/2

13-WP-12002-24.doc

S.S.Kilaje

considered by them.

Apart from this, it is sought to be canvassed by referring to the order impugned that there exists alternate road for contesting respondent and as such, the Authorities have erred in passing orders impugned. It is claimed that notice has been received by the petitioners dated 22.07.2024 for execution of the said order. Today at 12:10 p.m. statement is made on instructions from one of the petitioners who is present before the Court that the order has not been executed till this time. The said statement is accepted.

¶19

Petitioners have made out arguable and prima facie case, hence, there would be stay to the impugned order as well as communication notice dated 22.07.2024 till the next date of hearing.

¶20

Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 25^th September,

¶21

¶22

Smt. Raje, learned AGP, waives service of notice for respondent

¶23

-State.

¶24

( R. M. JOSHI, J.)

¶25

Digitally SONALI signed bySONALISATISH SATISH KILAJEDate: KILAJE 2024.08.2712:14:20 +0700

¶26

2/2

Nitin Vijaykumar Chavan and Anr. v. Ghamanabai Fulsingh Chavan Thru Sunil Fulsingh Chavan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Vijaykumar Chavan and Anr. v. Ghamanabai Fulsingh Chavan Thru Sunil Fulsingh Chavan 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Aarati Mahesh Babar Vs Mahesh Mohan Babar

Sou. Rani Vijay Karande Vs Vijay Mahadeo Karande

Shri Pranav Janardhan Hulikar and Others Vs Mrs. Urmila Shivaji Dodmani Nee Urmila Mallikarjun Hulikar

Purushottam Sanabhai Patel vs Wipro Limited

Dharmaraj Janardhan Tqandel and Ors. vs Jayendra Parshuram Patil and Ors.

Anutej Construction Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs Iqbal Ebrahim Khan and Ors.