Bombay High Court
Shri Chhabilal S/O Jaideo ... vs Maharashtra State Power ... on 18 July, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp1278.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO.1278/2014
1. Shri Chhabilal S/o Jaideo Chankapure,
aged about 53 Yrs., Occu. Service.
2. Ranjanabai W/o Chhabilal Chankapure,
aged about 46 Yrs., Occu. Household.
Both are R/o at Post Waregaon,
Tah. Kamptee, Distt. Nagpur. ..Petitioners.
(Ori. Plaintiffs)
..VS..
1.
Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd.,
through its Chief Engineer (O & M),
Thermal Power Station Khaparkheda,
Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur.
2. Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd.,
Koradi Thermal Power Station, through its
Chief Engineer (O & M) Khaparkheda,
Tah. Saoner, Distt. Nagpur. ..Respondents.
(Ori. Defendants)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Shri D.C. Chahande, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri G.E. Moharir, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 18.7.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Shri D.C. Chahande, Advocate for the petitioners, Shri G.E.
Moharir, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and Shri A.D. Mohgaonkar, Advocate for
the respondent No.2.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioners had filed Special Civil Suit No.769/2002 claiming
2 wp1278.14
compensation for death of their son due to drowning in the lake which according to
the petitioners is in the use of the respondents. The civil suit is decreed ex parte.
The respondents had filed application praying for setting aside ex parte judgment and
decree. As there was delay in filing this application, an application praying for
condonation of delay was filed which is allowed and delay is condoned. The
respondent No.2 has deposited the decretal amount with the Executing Court. The
petitioners filed application (Exh. No.15) praying that the amount deposited by the
respondent No.2 be given to the petitioners. According to the petitioners, the
petitioner No.1 is in service with the respondents and the amount which petitioner
No.1 would be receiving as retirement benefits would be much more than the amount
which is sought to be withdrawn and the amount deposited by the respondent No.2,
if withdrawn by the petitioners can be recovered from the amount of retirement
benefits of the petitioner No.1. The trial Court has rejected the application filed by
the petitioners.
4. The learned trial Judge has considered all the relevant aspects in
paragraph No.5 of the impugned order. It is rightly recorded that if the ex parte
judgment and decree is set aside, then there will be no cause for the petitioners to
seek the amount deposited by the respondent No.2, unless the claim of the petitioners
is again decreed by the trial Court. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.
The petition is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
5. As the civil suit filed by the petitioners is of 2002, the trial Court is
requested to expedite the matter and dispose the application filed by the respondents
3 wp1278.14
praying for setting aside the ex parte decree within three months.
JUDGE
Tambaskar.
4 wp1278.14
CERTIFICATE
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original signed Judgment/Order".
Uploaded By : N.V. Tambaskar. Uploaded On : 22.7.2016.
Personal Assistant.
