Bombay High Court
Ashok S/O Dinesh Mishra vs Smt. Sumitra Kavduji Rauat And 4 ... on 10 June, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
wp2351.15.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.2351 OF 2015
PETITIONER: Ashok S/o Dinesh Mishra, Aged
about 42 years, Occupation-Business
& Agricultural, R/o Plot no.67,
Maitri Colony, Nari Road, Nagpur.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: 1. Smt. Sumitra Kavduji Rauat,Aged
about : 50 years, occupation:
Agriculturist, R/o Village: Aajani,
Tah. Kamptee, District Nagpur
ig (Original Plaintiff).
2. Punjabrao Sitaram Wdankhede, Aged
about 80 years,
Occupation;Agriculturist, R/o Village:
Aajani, Tah. Kamptee, District
Nagpur. (Original D. no.1.
3. Pramod Punjabrao Wankhede
(Original D. No.2.) through lrs.
3(i) Ujwala Wd/o Pramod Wankhede,
Aged about 45 years, Occupation-not
known,
3(ii) Gopal S/o Pramod Wankhede, Aged
about 14 ywears, occupation-student,
Being minor through his natural
guardian Smt. Ujwala Wd/o Pramod
Wankhede.
4. Jeetendra Punjabrao Wankhede, Aged
about 45 years, Occupation-
Agriculturist, R/o Village Aajani, Tah.
Kamptee, District Nagpur (Original D-
3)
Deleted as per Courts 5.
The Hon'ble Joint Civil Judge, junior
order dt. 22-6-15. Division, Kamptee, District Nagpur.
Shri P. A. Abhyankar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M. A. Bhagatkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
::: Uploaded on - 18/06/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 04:55:03 :::
wp2351.15.odt 2/3
Shri S. D. Khati, Advocate for respondent Nos.3(i) & 3(ii)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATED: 10
th JUNE, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. In view of notice for final disposal, the learned Counsel
for the parties have been heard at length.
2. After arguing the writ petition for some time, Shri P. A.
Abhyankar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner in terms of the
order dated 22-6-2015 seeks liberty to withdraw the application
that was filed under provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 below Exhibit-69. He states that as the
original defendant No.2 has now expired, the petitioner moved a
fresh application under provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 of the
Code as it is his case that the title in the suit property stands
transferred in his name.
3. Considering aforesaid facts, the request made on
behalf of the petitioner is accepted and the following order is
passed:
(1) The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the application
below Exhibit-69 that was filed before the trial Court. As a result
of withdrawal of said application, the order dated 25-2-2015
passed thereon would not survive.
wp2351.15.odt 3/3
(2) The petitioner would be at liberty to file fresh
application under provisions of Order XXII Rule 10 of the Court
read with provisions of Order I Rule 10 of the Code. It is open for
the contesting parties to file their reply and oppose such
application. If such application is filed, the same shall be decided
by the trial Court on its own merits.
(3) The petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms. No costs.
//MULEY//
JUDGE
