Bombay High Court
Shri Dinanath S/O Shyamdas ... vs Shri Ashokkumar S/O Dulichand ... on 13 June, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
J-cra82.15.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION No.82 OF 2015
Shri Dinanath s/o. Shyamdas Chandnani,
Aged about ___ years,
Occupation : Proprietor of Shyam Biscuit Factory,
Tilak Road, House No.69, Mahal,
Nagpur, Tah. And Distt. Nagpur. : APPLICANT
...VERSUS...
Shri Ashokkumar s/o. Dulichand Sharma (deceased),
through his L.Rs.
1. Manoharidevi wd/o. Ashokkumar Sharma,
Aged about : Major years.
2. Rajkumar s/o. Ashokkumar Sharma,
Aged about 42 years.
3. Manojkumar s/o. Ashokkumar Sharma,
Aged about Major years.
Sr. No.1 to,
All R/o. Bilawato Ki Sonaron Ki Badi,
Gawad, Bikaner-334 001, Rajasthan.
4. Sudha Soni d/o. Ashokkumar Sharma,
Aged about Major years,
R/o. New Well City Katwali, Near Mangilalji Lohar
Ka Bada, Bikaner-334 001 Rajasthan.
Amended as per R/o. New Well City, Kotwali,
court's order Mangilal Lohar Ka Bada, Bikaner,
dt.28.6.2016.
Rajasthan.
5. Jathmel s/o. Motilal Jedia,
aged about 85 years,
Occupation : Business.
::: Uploaded on - 16/06/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 17/06/2017 00:43:45 :::
J-cra82.15.odt 2/3
6. Jagannath s/o. Motilal Jedia,
aged about 80 years,
Occupation : Business,
Sr. No.5. and 6 Both R/o. Naik Galli,
Itwari, Sarafa Bazar, Nagpur,
Tah. And Distt. Nagpur. : NON-APPLICANTS
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Shri D.G. Paunikar, Advocate for the Applicant.
Shri M.R. Joharapurkar, Advocate for Respondent No.5.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE, J.
th
DATE : 13
JUNE, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. On going through the impugned order, I do not think that
any interference with the same, at this stage, is required. However, the
main concern of the learned counsel for the revision applicant is about
what impact the order would have on the merits of the case and
according to him, the learned Civil Judge ought not to have concluded
the issue of limitation. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for the
non-applicant, a complete reading of the order does not create any such
impression for, the learned Civil Judge has made it clear in paragraph 14
of the impugned order that his observations are of only prima facie
nature. However, in order to address the concern expressed by learned
J-cra82.15.odt 3/3
counsel for revision applicant, I find it necessary to further clarify that all
the observations made in the impugned order shall be considered to be
confined to only deciding the issue involved in the application filed under
Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and shall have no
bearing on the merits of the issues involved in the suit including the issue
relating to the limitation. The issue of limitation and all other issues are
kept open and shall be accordingly decided by the trial Court on merits of
the case.
4. The suit being of 18 years old, it would be appropriate to also
direct the trial Court to dispose of the suit in accordance with law as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within six months from the date
of appearance of the parties before it, unless there is any stay order in
operation.
5. The parties to appear before the Court on the date already
fixed in the matter.
6. The parties to co-operate the trial Court in expeditious
disposal of the case.
JUDGE
okMksns
