Bombay High Court
Vinodkumar Vithalrao Shriramwar ... vs Yashwant Devidasrao Bhore And ... on 29 April, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2694 OF 2016
1. Vinodkumar Vithalrao Shriramwar,
Age-52 years, Occu-Business,
R/o Yashwantnagar, Nanded,
2. Saleem Hashambhai Hirani,
Age-56 years, Occu-Business,
R/o Khaja Colony, Nanded PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Yashwant Devidasrao Bhore,
Age-58 years, Occu-Business/
Agriculture,
R/o Mahaveer Chowk, Nanded,
2. Vinay Yashwant Bhore,
Age-26 years, Occu-Education,
R/o 144, South, 3rd Street Apartment,
420 Sanjose California, USA 95112,
Through G.P.A.
Yashwant Devidasrao Bhore,
R/o Mahaveer Chowk, Nanded RESPONDENTS
Mr.R.R.Mantri, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Y.D.Bhore, party in person / respondent No.1.
Mr.M.M.Patil (Beedkar), Advocate for respondent No.2.
( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
DATE : 29/04/2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
khs/April 2016/2694-d
consent of the parties.
2. On 16/03/2016, while issuing notice to the respondents, this
Court had recorded the submissions of the petitioners as under :-
"1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16/01/2016
passed by the Trial Court below Exhibit 195 and Exhibit 196 in
Special Civil Suit No.129/2010.
2. Grievance is that the respondents had preferred an identical
application in the form of a purshis Exhibit 181 by which the
applicant in the purshis had prayed that the presentation of an
application under Section 27 and 28 of the Specific Relief Act
seeking recession of contract in the Original Civil Suit
No.129/2010 deserves to be registered separately as
Miscellaneous Application R.J.E.
3. By a speaking order dated 11/01/2006, the Regular Trial
Court rejected the application. Within a short time thereafter,
application Exhibit 195 and 196 were moved by the respondents
for the same purpose before the in-charge Trial Court. Without
calling for the say of the other side i.e. the petitioner, the in-
charge Trial Court directed the Superintendent to register the
application as a Miscellaneous Application by an order dated
16/01/2016 which was passed immediately.
4. Issue notice before admission to the respondents, returnable
on 06/04/2016. Till the next date of hearing in the matter, both
the impugned orders dated 16/01/2016 below application
Exhibits 195 and 196 in Special Civil Suit No.129/2010 shall
stand stayed.
khs/April 2016/2694-d
5. Litigating sides are put to notice that if possible, this matter
would be heard finally at the admission stage on the returnable
date."
3. Respondent No.1 had appeared in person on behalf of himself
and respondent No.2 and he prayed for time to engage an Advocate
on 06/04/2016. On 22/04/2016, Mr.Patil, learned Advocate
appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 decided
to conduct this matter in person.
4. I have heard the learned Advocates for the respective sides at
length. The facts as recorded in paragraph Nos.1, 2 and 3 in the
order dated 16/03/2016 reproduced above, are not disputed.
5. Mr.Patil strenuously submits on the basis of the affidavit in
reply filed that there was no fraud played by either of the
respondents while filing applications Exh.195 and 196 in SCS
No.129/2010. He indicates from the copy of the roznama produced
that on 11/01/2016, the Trial Court passed an order on Exhibit 181
which is a purshis and finally concluded in the order that the purshis
Exh.181 stands filed. The impression gathered by the respondents
was that as the purshis has been filed, the order dated 11/01/2016
khs/April 2016/2694-d
cannot be assailed and hence on the next date 16/01/2016 as
granted by the regular Court, Exhibit 195 and 196 were filed.
6. Mr.Patil further submits that on 16/01/2016 as the regular
Court was on leave, the respondent was informed that the matter
would be called out in the second session before the Incharge Court.
The respondent, who is a General Power of Attorney Holder for both
the respondents in this matter as well as before the Trial Court,
appeared before the Incharge Court, which passed the impugned
order on 16/01/2016 directing the Superintendent to register misc.
application. He adds that the copies for the other side were also
supplied.
7. Learned Advocate for the petitioners though has strenuously
submitted that the respondent has committed a fraud, I am not
inclined to go into that aspect of the matter. Ends of justice would be
met by setting aside the impugned single line order dated
16/01/2016 and by permitting the petitioners to file their replies to
Exhibit 195 and 196 so as to assist the Trial Court in deciding both
the applications expeditiously.
8. In the light of the above, this petition is partly allowed. The
khs/April 2016/2694-d
impugned order dated 16/01/2016 is quashed and set aside and
Exhibit 195 and 196 stand restored to the file of the Trial Court in
Spl.C.S.No.129/2010. The petitioners shall file their "SAY" to Exhibit
195 and 196 on or before 10/06/2016. The Trial Court shall hear the
litigating sides on the said two applications and shall decide the
same as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before
16/07/2016. Needless to state, the contentions of all the litigating
sides are kept open.
9. Rule is made partly absolute in the above terms.
( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
khs/April 2016/2694-d
