Bombay High Court
Shri Rajesh Tanbaji Sonkusare vs Jagdamba Housing Developers Pvt. ... on 22 March, 2016
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-wp4664.14.odt 1/4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION No.4664 OF 2014
Shri Rajesh Tanbaji Sonkusare,
Aged about 41 years,
Occupation : Service,
R/o. "Ganga", RH-81,
Venkatesh Nagar, Near K.D.K. College,
Nandanwan, Nagpur-440 009. : PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. Jagdamba Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
Corrected address of Off. At [Behind Natraj Talkies,
respondent Nos.1 to 5 is
given below respondent
Zenda Chowk, Near Baba Sontoshram Palace,
No.5 as per Registrar Nagpur-440 032.]
(J) order
dated.20.2.2015
2. Jagdamba Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director,
Sau. Kirti Deepak Bangare,
Aged about 36 years,
Occupation : Business,
[R/o. Behind Natraj Talkies,
Zenda Chowk, Near Baba Santoshram Palace,
Nagpur-440 032.]
3. Sau. Kirti Deepak Bangare,
Director of Jagdamba Housing Developers,
Pvt. Ltd., Aged about 36 years,
Occupation : Business,
[R/o. Behind Natraj Talkies, Zenda Chowk,
Near Baba Santoshram Palace,
Nagpur-440 032.]
4. Jagdamba Housing Developers Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Director Shri Deepak Bangare,
::: Uploaded on - 23/03/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 09:57:50 :::
J-wp4664.14.odt 2/4
Aged about 38 years,
Occupation : Business,
[R/o. Behind Natraj Talkies,
Zenda Chowk, Near Baba Santoshram Palace,
Nagpur-440 032.]
5. Shri Deepak Bangare,
Director of Jagdamba Housing Developers
Pvt. Ltd., Aged about 38 years,
Occupation : Business,
[R/o. Behind Natraj Talkies,
Zenda Chowk, Near Baba Santoshram Palace,
Nagpur-440 032.]
Amendment
carried out as per Respondent No.1 to 5 R/at.
Registrar(J) order "Maha Ganga"
dated 20.2.2015.
C/o. M.T. Jadhav,
1/48, Raghuji Nagar,
Behind Kamgar Nagar,
Kalyan Bhawan, Nagpur. : RESPONDENTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mr. S.O. Ahmed, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
nd MARCH, 2016.
DATE : 22
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel appearing
J-wp4664.14.odt 3/4
for the parties.
4. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the
legality and correctness of the order dated 9.6.2014 passed by the
5th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, in Summary Civil Suit
No.101/2013 thereby granting leave to defend under Order 37 Rule
5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
5. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is limited and this Court is only required to see
whether the order challenged is perverse or arbitrary or has been
passed in breach of express provisions of law. It is also well settled
that every order challenged by invoking the jurisdiction of the Court
under Article 227 of the Constitution of India need not be corrected
by this Court, if no substantial prejudice is being caused to the
parties challenging the order.
6. On perusal of the impugned order, I find that by
granting leave to take defence no substantial prejudice is being
caused to the plaintiff-petitioner. However, it would be in the
interest of justice that whatever amount that has been admitted
to be due and payable by the respondents to the petitioner, in this
case it is a sum of Rs.5/- lacs, is directed to be deposited in the trial
Court.
J-wp4664.14.odt 4/4
7. In the result, I find there is no need to make any
interference with the order insofar as merits of the matter are
concerned. However, the impugned order needs to be modified by
imposing a condition and the condition would be now that the
respondents shall deposit in the trial Court an amount of Rs.5/- lacs
within 3 weeks from the date of order.
8. The impugned order shall stand modified accordingly.
9. Writ petition is disposed of and the rule is discharged,
subject to the modification directed in this order.
JUDGE
okMksns
