Sau. Sindhutai W/O Rambhauji ... vs Shri Prafulla S/O Wamanrao Mhatre
2016 Latest Caselaw 2835 Bom

                                                                                     wp5936.15
                                                 1

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH 




                                                                                     
                                 NAGPUR.

                      WRIT    PETITION     NO.  5936     OF     2015




                                                             
    1] Sindhutai Rambhauji Dhumale,




                                                            
    aged 65 yrs., Occu. Housework,
    R/o C/o Anil Badone, at Kurha,
    Tq. Tiosa, Distt. Amravati. 

    2] Vaishali Manoj Dhumale,




                                              
    aged 42 yrs. Occu. Housework,
    R/o Anjansingi, Tq. Dhamangaon
                             
    Rly. Distt. Amravati.                                                 PETITIONERS.
                            
                                              VERSUS


    Prafulla Wamanrao Mhatre,
    aged 45 yrs., Occu. Agriculturist,
      


    R/o Dhakulgaon, Tq. Dhamangaon
    Rly., Distt. Amravati.                                                RESPONDENT.

Shri S. S. Alaspurkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri D. P. Dapurkar, Advocate for the respondent

CORAM: A. S. CHANDURKAR J.

                                      Dated    :   JUNE  14, 2016.





    ORAL JUDGMENT: 


                  Rule.    Heard   finally   with   consent   of   learned   counsel   for   the 

    parties.  

    2]            The   petitioners   are   aggrieved   by   the   order   passed   by   the 

appellate Court rejecting the application filed under the provisions of Order

wp5936.15

XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, thereby refusing to grant

stay to the decree for possession. The suit filed by the present respondent has

been decreed by the trial Court and the present petitioners have been

directed to deliver possession of the suit property which is a house. This

Court while issuing notice had directed the parties to maintain status quo.

3] Without entering into the merits of the respective contentions, I

find that since the decree is for possession of house property and the order of

status quo has been operating since 28.10.2015, the appeal filed by the

present petitioners itself can be decided on merits.

4] Hence, without observing anything on merits and keeping

respective contentions open, the proceedings in Regular Civil Appeal No. 51

of 2015 are expedited. The said appeal shall be decided by the end of

December 2016. The order of status quo granted by this Court shall continue

to operate during pendency of the appeal. However, the appellate Court

shall not be influenced by the present arrangement and the appeal shall be

decided on its own merits in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in

aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

svk

wp5936.15