Shri Dilip S/O. Gangalal Hote And ... vs Manish W/O. Late Santoshkumar ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1677 Bom

 Judgment                                          1                                wp3047.16.odt




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


                           WRIT PETITION NO. 3047 OF 2016



 1. Shri Dilip S/o. Gangalal Hote,
    aged 63 years, Occ.: Retired, 

 2. Shri Anil S/o. Gangalal Hote,
    aged 56 years, Occ.: Business,

      Both 1 & 2 R/o. of House No.J-578,
      Old Bhajimandi, Kamptee, 
      District : Nagpur. 

 3. Ku. Chhaya d/o. Gangalal Hote,
    (Now Sou. Chhaya w/o. Umesh Meghad)
    aged about 50 yrs., Occ. Household, 
    R/o. Post Deoli, Tahsil & District :Nagpur. 

                                                                      .... PETITIONERS
                                                                                    . 


                                    //  VERSUS //

 1.    Manish w/o. Late Santoshkumar Saraf,
       aged about 31 yrs., Occ.

 2.    Satish S/o. Vijaykumar Saraf,
       aged about 35 yrs., Occ. 

 3.    Kashish S/o. Shivkumar Saraf,
       aged about 24 yrs., Occ. 

       All residents of Loiya Marg, 
       Lala Oli, Kamptee, Tahsil: Kamptee,
       District : Nagpur. 
                                                                   ....  RESPONDENTS.

  ___________________________________________________________________
 Shri Masood Shareef, Advocate for the Petitioners. 
 Shri R.I. Agrawal, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 
 ___________________________________________________________________



::: Uploaded on - 21/04/2017                           ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 23:02:24 :::
  Judgment                                            2                                wp3047.16.odt




                              CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : APRIL 12, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. The Judgment Debtors have filed this petition challenging the

condition imposed by the District Court, directing them to deposit

Rs.10,000/- per month towards occupation charges for staying the execution

of decree of eviction passed by the trial Court.

4. The learned advocates for the respective parties submit that as

the Judgment Debtors failed to deposit the amount the decree is executed

and possession is handed over to the respondents-Decree Holders on 6th

January, 2017.

5. The learned advocate for the petitioners/Judgment Debtors has

submitted that the respondents/Decree Holders are seeking to recover the

amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on the basis of the impugned order passed by the

District Court. The question is whether the impugned order passed by the

District Court imposing condition for staying execution of decree is

executable and whether the Decree Holders can recover the amount as per

the impugned order.

Judgment 3 wp3047.16.odt

6. In the facts of the case, in my view, the interests of justice would

be sub-served by passing the following order :

i) The execution proceedings filed by the respondents/Decree

Holders for recovery of amount of Rs.1,50,000/- shall stand

stayed on condition that the petitioners/Judgment Debtors shall

deposit the amount of Rs.50,000/- before the executing Court

till 9th June, 2017.

If the amount of Rs.50,000/- is not deposited by the Judgment

Debtors till 9th June, 2017 the Decree Holders will be at liberty

to proceed with the execution after 9th June, 2017.

ii) While deciding the Regular Civil Appeal No.437 of 2015 the

District Court shall also examine whether the respondents/

Decree Holders are entitled to recover the amount as per the

order passed by it on 12th February, 2016.

The petition is disposed in the above terms. In the

circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

RRaut..