Allowed

Mohd. Raees Mohd. Saeed, through P.O.A. Holder, Abdul Rehman Abdul Sattar v. Kisan Ramchandra Balwar Dead, through Its Lrs., Mahadeo S/O Kisan Makekar

Bombay HC23 Sept 2024WP/2595/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge was化解ed to restore a special application rejected for want of prosecution. The petition for restoring the application was allowed subject to the payment of court costs. Liberty was granted to the intervenor to file an appropriate application.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; MJC No. 28/2013 restored to trial court file subject to deposit of Rs. 5,000; liberty granted to intervenor to file application.

Mohd. Raees Mohd. Saeed, through P.O.A. Holder… — Execution and Attachment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 wp 2595.20.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-NAG:11123

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶4

Writ Petition No.2595/2020 (Mohd. Raees Mohd. Saeed V Kisan and others)

¶5

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders

¶7

appearances, Court's orders of directions

¶8

and Registrar's orders

¶9

¶10

Mr. P.S. Wathore, Advocate for petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Mardikar, Senior Counsel a/b Mr. Ved Deshpande, Advocate for resp. nos.1(a), (b), (c) and (e).

¶12

Mr. A.D. Bhate, Advocate for resp. nos.2(a) and (b).

¶13

Mr. A.C. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for applicant/intervenor.

¶14

CORAM : N.R. Borkar, J. DATE : 23-09-2024.

¶15

This petition takes exception to the order dated 06-03-2020 passed by the learned 4^th Joint Civil Judge,

¶16

Junior Division Khamgaon in M.J.C. No.28/2013.

¶17

ii. By the order impugned the learned trial Court has rejected the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for want of prosecution.

¶18

iii. The above application was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the decree dated 31-12-2012 in favour of original plaintiff Kisan Balwar. As the original plaintiff had died during the pendency of the application, an application

¶19

was filed for bringing his legal representatives. On

¶20

2 wp 2595.20.odt

¶21

09-07-2019, the application for bringing legal representatives of the original plaintiff was allowed. The order to that effect reads thus :

¶22

"As the application is within limitation this application be deserves to be allowed. Hence applicant to bring names of L.R.'s on record within 14 days from today and carry out amendment."

¶23

iv. On the very same day the above order was recalled as it was found that the application was not within limitation. The order to that effect reads thus :

¶24

"Later on it was brought to notice that application is not in Limitation, as the respondent died on 02.11.2014. Hence as application is not within limitation as per Article 120 of Limitation Act and as there is no application for setting aside abatement or for delay this application is rejected and earlier order recalled u/s. 151 of C.P.C."

¶25

v. After passing of the above order no steps were

¶26

taken in the matter. The learned trial Court thus by the order

¶27

3 wp 2595.20.odt

¶28

impugned has rejected the main application, for want of prosecution.

¶29

vi. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents, and the learned Counsel for the intervenor.

¶30

vii. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits

¶31

that one opportunity be granted to prosecute the application.

¶32

viii. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that considering the facts and circumstances the application may not be restored.

¶33

ix. The learned Counsel for the intervenor submits that intervenor is the bonafide purchaser of the suit property. It is submitted that the intervenor be allowed to prosecute the application.

¶34

x. Considering the overall facts and circumstances, it

¶35

would be in the interest of justice to restore the application. Hence, the following order is passed :-

¶36

4 wp 2595.20.odt

¶37

(a) The order impugned is set aside.

¶38

(b) MJC No.28/2013 be restored to the file of trial Court, subject to payment of cost of Rs.5000/-.

¶39

(c) The petitioner shall pay the said cost to Legal Aid Services Sub-Committee, High Court Bench at Nagpur within four weeks.

¶40

(d) Liberty is granted to the intervenor to file appropriate application before the learned trial Court. If such application is filed the learned trial Court shall decide it on it's own merits.

¶41

( N.R. Borkar, J. )

¶42

Deshmukh

Mohd. Raees Mohd. Saeed, through P.O.A. Holder, Abdul Rehman Abdul Sattar v. Kisan Ramchandra Balwar Dead, through Its Lrs., Mahadeo S/O Kisan Makekar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohd. Raees Mohd. Saeed, through P.O.A. Holder, Abdul Rehman Abdul Sattar v. Kisan Ramchandra Balwar Dead, through Its Lrs., Mahadeo S/O Kisan Makekar

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

Rajesh S/O Wamanrao Deotale Vs the District Deputy Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Chandrapur and Anotehr

Vaibhav Ashok Barde Vs the Additional Collector, Yavatmal Collector Office, Yavatmal and Others

Union of India, Thr. General Manager, Mumbai and Another Vs M. B. Mate

Hasinabai Pirmohammad Ansari Vs Shriram Bali @ Baliram Junghare and Others

Smt. Sarika W/O Vinod Uikey and Others Vs the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

Jagdish S/O Yugraj Rupareliya Vs Chaya Wd/O Mahesh Rupareliya and Others