Bombay High Court
Raje Smt. Chhaya W/O Jagjiwan ... vs Govind Narayan Ghukase on 6 June, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 wp5906.14
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.5906 OF 2014
1) Raje Smt. Chhaya w/o Jagjiwan Deshmukh,
Aged about 58 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
2) Raje Ku. Jayashree d/o Jagjiwan Deshmukh,
Aged about 34 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
3) Raje Virendra Jagjiwan Deshmukh,
Aged 33 years, Occupation - Agriculturist,
All R/o Raje Udaram Bhavan Chubara
Square, Pusad, Tahsil - Pusad,
District - Yavatmal. .... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
Govind Narayan Ghukase,
Aged about 38 years,
Occupation - Agriculturist,
R/o Sai Izara, Tahsil - Mahagaon,
District - Yavatmal. .... RESPONDENT
______________________________________________________________
Shri N.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners,
None for the respondent.
______________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATED : 6
JUNE, 2016
th
2 wp5906.14
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri N.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners/
plaintiffs.
In response to the notice issued by this Court by the order
dated 10-11-2014, none appeared for the respondent and therefore,
again by the order dated 09-02-2016 notice for final disposal was
issued to the respondent. None appears for the respondent.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. The petitioners/plaintiffs filed the civil suit praying for
decree for possession of suit field. The civil suit was dismissed by the
trial Court by the judgment dated 27-03-2006. The petitioners had
filed Regular Civil Appeal No.12/2006 before the District Court
challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. The
learned District Judge, by the judgment dated 21-04-2012, partly
allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the
trial Court and remanded the matter to the trial Court for deciding the
suit as per law. The learned District Judge directed the trial Court to
consider if reference as per Section 125 of the Maharashtra Tenancy
and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 was required to
3 wp5906.14
be made.
After remand, the learned trial Judge took up the matter
and by the impugned order concluded that there is no necessity to
make reference as per Section 125 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 and disposed the civil
suit. The petitioners/plaintiffs being aggrieved by the order passed by
the trial Court, have filed this writ petition.
4. Shri N.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the petitioners has
submitted that the trial Court has committed an error of jurisdiction by
not adverting to the other issues which were framed. It is submitted
that the District Court having set aside the judgment and decree,
earlier passed by the trial Court, it was obligatory on the part of the
learned trial Judge to deal with all the issues and dispose the civil suit
on merits. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are
required to be accepted as they are in consonance with the legal
position.
5. Hence, the following order :
i) The impugned order is set aside.
ii) The matter is remitted to the Civil Judge Junior Division,
4 wp5906.14
Mahagaon for deciding the civil suit afresh.
iii) The trial Court shall deal with all the issues framed and
shall answer them.
iv) It is made clear that the parties are not permitted to
amend the pleadings or to file any documents.
v) The trial Court shall pass the judgment, considering the
material already on the record.
vi) The petitioners shall appear before the Civil Judge, Junior
Division, Mahagaon on 29th July, 2016 at 11-00 a.m.
vii) The trial Court shall issue notice to the
respondent/defendant and dispose the civil suit on merits
after the defendant is served.
viii) Rule is made absolute in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
pma
