Kanna Satyanarayan K. Ramarao ... vs Shri Devidas Radheshyam Sharma ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 807 Bom

            J-wp7166.14.odt                                                                                                  1/2 


                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                                                            
                                       WRIT PETITION No.7166 OF 2014




                                                                             
            1.    Kanna Satyanarayan K. Ramarao (Chinna),
                   Aged about 45 years,




                                                                            
                   Occupation : Business,
                   R/o. Railway Nagar Ward,
                   Ballarpur, Tah. Ballarpur,
                   District : Chandrapur.            :      PETITIONER




                                                          
                               ...VERSUS...
                                 
            1.    Shri Devidas Radheshyam Sharma,
                   Aged about 36 years,
                   Occupation : Business,
                                
                   R/o. Railway Nagar Ward, Ballarpur,
                   Tah. Ballarpur, District : Chandrapur.

            2.    Nagar Parishad, Ballarpur,
      


                   Through it's Chief Officer,
                   Ballarpur,
   



                   Tah. Ballarpur, District : Chandrapur.  :      RESPONDENTS

            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
            Mr. M. Anil Kumar, Advocate for the Petitioner.





            Mr. M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for the Respondents.
            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

                                                          CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.
                                                                           st
                                                          DATE      :   21
                                                                              MARCH, 2016.





            ORAL JUDGMENT   :


            1.                 Heard.

            2.                 Rule.  Rule is made returnable forthwith.

            3.                 Considering   the   fact   that   the   suit   is   now   fixed   for




    ::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2016                                              ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:49:52 :::
                       J-wp7166.14.odt                                                                                                  2/2 


                      evidence and also the submission made on behalf of the petitioner

                      that   the   petitioner   is   seeking   in   this   petition   only   a   clarification




                                                                                                                      
                      regarding   the   observations   made   in   the   order   impugned   in   this




                                                                                       
                      petition, following order is passed :

                                                                       O R D E R

(i) The observations made by the trial Court in

its order dated 10th July, 2012 passed below

Exh.-5 and also by the first Appellate Court ig in its order dated 7th April, 2014 passed in

Misc. Civil Appeal No.62/2012 shall not

come in the way of deciding the suit on its

own merit and that the Court below shall

not be influenced by these observations in

deciding the suit on merits.

(ii) All contentions of both sides are kept open.

(iii) The petition is accordingly disposed of.

(iv) Rule is made absolute in these terms. No

costs.

JUDGE

okMksns