Bombay High Court
Nagorao Maruti More vs Anjanabai Maruti More And Others on 15 April, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP-3424.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 3424 OF 2016
Nagorao s/o Maruti More
Age major, occup. Agriculture, .. Petitioners/
R/o Donwada, Taluka Basmat, Original
Dist. Hingoli Appellant /No.4
Deft. No. 4
versus
1. Anjanabai w/o Maruti More,
Age 60 years, occup. Household,
R/o Donwada, Tq. Basmat,
Dist. Hingoli
2. Ramchandra s/o Maruti More,
Age 40 years, occup. Barber,
R/o Sukali, Tq. Basmat,
Dist. Hingoli.
3. Maruti s/o Nagoji More,
Age 65 years, occup. Agriculture,
R/o Donwada, Tq. Basmat,
Dist. Hingoli
4. Nilawatibai w/o Maruti More,
Age major, occup. Household,
R/o Donwada, Tq. Basmat,
Dist. Hingoli.
5. Bhagorao Maruti More,
Age major, occup. Barber,
R/o Donwada, Tq. Basmat,
Dist. Hingoli . . Respondents/
Resps. No. 1
6. Balaji s/o Maruti More, & 2 orig. Pltfs.
Age major, occup. Barber, Respondents
R/o Donwada, Tq. Basmat, No.3 to 6 orig.
Dist. Hingoli. Defts. No. 1 to
3 and 5
---
Mr. Pravin N. Kalani, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. Hanmant V. Patil, Advocate for respondent no. 2
::: Uploaded on - 16/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 22:27:56 :::
2 WP-3424.16.doc
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard learned
counsel for parties finally, by consent.
2.
On instructions, learned counsel for petitioner seeks
deletion of respondents no. 3 to 6. As such, at the risk and peril
of petitioner, respondents no. 3 to 6 stand deleted from the
array of respondents.
3. Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 28-01-2016,
whereby application Exhibit-25 in regular civil appeal no. 18 of
2011 at his behest, seeking stay to the operation and execution
of the judgment and decree in regular civil suit no. 149 of 2009
passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Basmat on 17-08-2011,
has been rejected by District Judge-1, Basmath.
4. Factual aspects from the submissions emerge that against
the judgment and decree of the trial court referred to
hereinabove, present petitioner has preferred regular civil appeal
no. 18 of 2011 which is pending. In the appeal, initially
3 WP-3424.16.doc
application seeking stay to the execution and implementation of
trial court's judgment and decree had been filed but not pressed.
5. It is the contention of the petitioner that application for
stay was not pressed as execution petition had not been filed.
He submits that thereafter while subsequently execution petition
had been filed, he moved application Exhibit-25 in regular civil
appeal no. 18 of 2011. According to learned counsel, the
appeal has been ready for hearing from quite a while.
6. It appears that measurement pursuant to orders passed
by revenue authorities has already been carried out. It is only
defendant no. 4 - present petitioner who is before this court.
Rest of the defendants have not applied for stay.
7. During the course of arguments, it has been adverted to
that the amount of maintenance is not being paid by defendants.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that said amount is
not directed to be paid by present petitioner.
9. As such, regular civil appeal no. 18 of 2011 be heard on
merits expeditiously and decided preferably within a period
three months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Till
then, the land in possession of the petitioner may not be
disturbed in the execution proceedings. So far as possession
4 WP-3424.16.doc
sought from other defendants is concerned, this order would not
apply to them.
10. Rule made absolute accordingly. Writ petition stands
disposed of.
ig SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,
JUDGE
pnd
