Ramnath Sakharam Pawar And ... vs Raosaheb Baban Pawar
2016 Latest Caselaw 521 Bom

                                          {1}                               wp28-16

     drp
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                                          
                           WRIT PETITION NO.28 OF 2016




                                                  
     1.       Ramnath s/o Sakharam Pawar                         PETITIONERS
              Age - 51 years, Occ - Agriculture
              R/o Ladsawangi,
              Taluka and District - Aurangabad




                                                 
     2.       Babasaheb s/o Sakharam Pawar,
              Age - 36 years, Occ - Agriculture
              R/o Ladsawangi,




                                        
              Taluka and District - Aurangabad

              VERSUS

     Raosaheb Baban Pawar
                              ig                               RESPONDENTS
     Age - 51 years, occ - Agriculture
                            
     R/o Ladsawangi,
     Taluka and District - Aurangabad

                                     .......

Mr. Kiran D. Jadhav, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. P. P. More h/f Mr. N. S. Ingle, Advocate for the respondent

.......

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

DATE : 10th MARCH, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with

consent of learned advocates for the parties.

2. The petitioners are before this court aggrieved by a non

speaking order dated 14th August, 2015, upon an application

Exhibit-27 filed by the petitioners-defendants in Regular Civil

{2} wp28-16

Suit No.652 of 2014 pending before Civil Judge, Junior Division,

Aurangabad seeking to defer hearing of the suit till decision in

the proceedings pending before District Superintendent of Land

Records.

3. Learned advocate for the petitioners points out that the

rejection has been on the sole ground that the appeal bearing

No.718 of 2014 pending before Superintendent of Land Records,

is considered to be not on record before the court, however, the

situation is otherwise. He refers to his written statement,

wherein, in paragraph "F" as appearing on page 30 there is

reference to said document. He further submits that cognizance

of said document is also taken while deciding temporary

injunction application.

4. Learned advocate for the respondent, however, submits

that proceedings before Superintendent of Land Records, are

subsequent in point of time, after lodging of the suit and further

that the reasons for rejection of application Exhibit-27

purportedly may not be proper, however, the ultimate decision is

correct.

5. Perusal of the impugned order shows that it is too terse

and is short of reflection of application mind to the contents

{3} wp28-16

of the application Exhibit-27. In view of the same, I deem it

appropriate and expedient to set aside the impugned order and

remit the matter for re-consideration, having regard to

documents on record, as are stated by learned advocate for the

petitioners to be available.

6. As such, the impugned order dated 14 th August, 2015

passed by civil judge, junior division, Aurangabad on Exhibit-27

in Regular Civil Suit No.652 of 2014 is set aside. Application

Exhibit-27 is restored to be decided in accordance with law and

facts and the record. It is made clear that merits of application

Exhibit-27 were not at all under consideration while this order

has been passed. Writ petition, as such, stands allowed. Rule is

made absolute in aforesaid terms.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

drp/wp28-16