Shri. Sudhakar Ramkrushna Latkar vs Shri. Satish Ramkrishna Dhabekar
2016 Latest Caselaw 3571 Bom

                                                                              wp4695.15
                                           1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR 




                                                                              
                           BENCH NAGPUR.




                                                      
                  WRIT    PETITION     NO.   4695      OF     2015


    Sudhakar Ramkrushna Latkar,




                                                     
    aged 41 yrs. Occu.Business,
    C/o Prabhakar Pakhale,
    Shivnagar, Nagpur.                                              PETITIONER.

                                         VERSUS




                                         
    Satish Ramkrishna Dhabekar,
                             
    aged 40 yrs. Occu.Business, 
    R/o Qr. No. 5/84, Near Chhota
    Tajbagh, Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur. 
                            
    RESPONDENT.

Shri N. G. Jetha, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri R. L. Khapre, Advocate for the respondent.

                                CORAM:     A. S. CHANDURKAR  J.
                                     Dated    :   JULY  04, 2016.





    ORAL JUDGMENT: 

In view of notice for final disposal the learned counsel for

the parties have been heard at length.

2] The petitioner is the decree holder in whose favour decree

for specific performance came to be passed in Special Civil Suit No. 286

of 1998. When this decree was sought to be executed the judgment

debtor raised an objection on the ground that the decree for specific

performance could not be executed against him in view of a

wp4695.15

subsequent decree passed in Special Civil Suit No. 430 of 2009. The

executing Court therefore framed three issues in the light of the

objection raised by the judgment debtor. Being aggrieved the decree

holder has filed the present writ petition challenging the said order.

2] Shri N. G. Jetha, the learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that the executing Court was not justified in framing the

issues in question. He submitted that the decree in Special Civil Suit

No. 430 of 2009 was passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division

and therefore the issues as framed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior

Division could not have been so framed. He further submitted that

these issues have been framed in the proceedings initiated by the

petitioner and not on the objection raised by the respondent. On the

other hand Shri R. L. Khapre, the learned counsel for the respondent

supported the impugned order and submitted that the decree passed in

the other suit was binding on the petitioner herein.

3] I have considered the nature of the decree that has been

passed in Special Civil Suit No.430 of 2009 in which the petitioner was

also a party. I do not find the executing Court committed any

jurisdictional error in framing the issues in question. The nature of the

issues as framed relate to the objections raised in the execution

proceedings. The same would have to be answered by taking into

account the objection as to whether the decree in question could be

wp4695.15

executed against the judgment debtor.

4] In view of aforesaid, there is no case made out to interfere in

writ jurisdiction. The writ petition stands dismissed however, the

darkhast proceedings filed by the petitioner are expedited.

JUDGE svk