Bombay High Court
Bhaskar Sakharam Gorde vs Ramdas Sakharam Gorde And Others on 7 July, 2016
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 WP-2622.16.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 2622 OF 2016
Bhaskar s/o Sakharam Gorde
Age: 46 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Kelwad, Tq. Rahata,
District - Ahmednagar ... Petitioner
(Orig. Plaintiff)
Versus
1. Ramdas s/o Sakharam Gorde
Age: 56 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Kelwad, Tq. Rahata,
District - Ahmednagar
2. Bhanudas s/o Sakharam Gorde
Age-51 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. as above.
3. Shobha Rajendra Dhanvate
Age-44 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Wakadi, Tq. Rahata,
District - Ahmednagar
4. Padma Gorakh Dhonde
Age-41 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Sade, Tq. Rahuri,
District - Ahmednagar
5. Satyabhama Sakharam
Age 61 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Kelwad, Tq. Rahata,
District - Ahmednagar
6. Bhikaji s/o Sukhdeo Gorde
Age-62 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. as above.
7. Uttam @ Purushottam Sukhdeo Gorde
Age-54 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. as above.
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:32:38 :::
2 WP-2622.16.doc
8. Sanjay s/o Sukhdeo Gorde
Age-32 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. as above.
9. Vatsalabai Bhimraj Gunjal
Age-51 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o. Kakadi, Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar
10. Chandrakala Shankar Gunjal
Age-42 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o as above.
11. Alkabai Vasantrao Pachore
Age-40 years, Occu. Agril.,
R/o Bahadarabad, Tq. Kopargaon,
Dist. Ahmednagar
12. Ashabai Sukhdeo Gorde @
Ashabai Laxman Nalkar,
Age-36 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Ekrukhe, Tq. Rahata,
Dist. Ahmednagar
13. Kunal s/o Bhaskar Gorde
Age - 16 years, Occu. Education,
Minor, u/g of her mother
Sau. Nirmala Bhaskar Gorde
14. Sau. Nirmala Bhaskar Gorde
Age-41 years, Occu. Agril. & Household,
15. Sau. Sunita Ramdas Gorde,
Age-48 years, Occu. Agril & Household,
16. Sau. Meena Bhanudas Gorde,
Age-45 years, Occu. Agril. & Household,
17. Laxman Changdev Gorde
Age-65 years, Occu. Agril.,
Nos. 13 to 17 R/o. Kelwad,
Tq. Rahata, Dist. Ahmednagar ...Respondents
(Orig. Defendants)
::: Uploaded on - 12/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 08:32:38 :::
3 WP-2622.16.doc
.....
Mr. C. K. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. C. R. Thorat, Advocate for respondent No.7
.....
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 07th JULY, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard with
consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties,
finally.
2. The petitioner-original plaintiff purports to have been
aggrieved by continuation of Regular Civil Suit No. 335 of
2012.
3. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, after
institution of suit, the same had been referred to Lok Adalat
for settlement between the parties. In the suit, present
respondent No.17 had not been party. However, on 21 st April,
2012 which is just a day prior of the date on which the matter
had been placed before the Lok Adalat on 22nd April, 2016, an
application had been moved by present respondent No.17
under Exhibit-10 seeking to implead himself as party to the
4 WP-2622.16.doc
suit. Learned counsel further submits that the Lok Adalat has
endorsed that the parties have submitted compromise pursis
and had verified the same and had admitted the contents.
4. Mr. Thorat, learned counsel for respondent No.7 submits
that the petitioner has not been able to place anything on
record about the suit having been disposed of in terms of
settlement in 2012. A lot of events in his submissions have
taken place after 22-04-2012.
5. It appears subsequent to 22-04-2012 no further
cognizance of Lok Adalat proceedings appears to have been
taken by the court and the suit continued to be proceeded
with. In 2013, application of respondent No.17 for impleading
as party defendant has also been allowed and various
applications thereafter have been filed on either side in the
suit. It appears that a pursis had been tendered on behalf of
the plaintiff for withdrawal of the suit. It further appears that
respondent No.17 along with written statement had filed his
counter-claim, as also certain other applications, appear to
have been filed and certain orders have also been passed. It
was only when amendment to the counter claim had been
allowed and application Exhibit-37 of petitioner to
5 WP-2622.16.doc
delete/strike off counter-claim of respondent No.17 has been
rejected in February, 2016, the present writ petition had been
filed.
6. In view of aforesaid position which is largely undisputed,
the writ petition, as such, is not being entertained and is
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J. )
sms
