Dilip Gopal Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 3662 Bom

                                     {1}                            wp10018-15

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

                    WRIT PETITION NO.10018 OF 2015

 Dilip Gopal Patil                                              PETITIONER
 Age - 52 years, Occ - Nil,
 R/o Padalda, Taluka - Shahada
 District - Nandurbar

          VERSUS

 1.       The State of Maharashtra                          RESPONDENTS
          Through its Secretary,
          Irrigation Department,
          Mantralaya, Mumbai

 2.       The Collector, Nandurbar
          District - Nandurbar

 3.       The Additional Collector,
          Sardar Sarovar Project,
          Nandurbar, District - Nandurbar

 4.       Sau. Ujjvala Dilip Patil,
          Age - 46 years, Occ - Agriculture

 5.       Deepak Dilip Patil,
          Age - 22 years, Occ - Student

 6.       Karuna Dilip Patil,
          Age - 19 years, Occ - Student

 7.       Manisha Dilip Patil,
          Age - 17 years, Occ - Student

          All R/o Padalda, Taluka - Shahada
          Respondent No.7 is minor and her
          parents is respondent No.4

                                  .......

Mr. Milind Patil h/f Mr. D. M. Pingale, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. P. Tiwari, AGP for respondent - State .......

                                          {2}                               wp10018-15


                               [CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

                                     DATE : 27th JUNE, 2017

 ORAL JUDGMENT :

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

consent of learned advocates for the appearing parties.

2. Application Exhibit - 47 had been moved by the petitioner

for setting aside ex parte order passed in Special Civil Suit No.

48 of 2012, which is filed by wife and children of the petitioner

for declaration that sale deed executed by present petitioner to

be null and illegal and not binding on the plaintiffs and to quash

and set aside the same and injunction against defendants No. 1

to 3 from interfering with the suit land. Order, suit to proceed ex

parte against defendant No. 4 - petitioner had been passed on

19th August, 2011. Issues were framed on 21st April, 2012 and

the plaintiffs had led evidence. Thereafter it is on 15 th

September, 2014, the petitioner had moved application Exhibit-

47 for setting aside the ex parte order.

3. It has been contended by the petitioner that due to ill-

health, he could not appreciate implications of service of

summons on him. He has been dependent upon plaintiff No.1.

{3} wp10018-15

Trial court has gauged that plaintiff No.1 and defendant No.1 are

jointly residing.

4. Although learned advocate for the petitioner has contended

that due to mental instability the matter went ex parte, and its

implications could not be realized till 2014. It is being claimed

that the petitioner is now in a position to appreciate implications.

Yet, there has been no material placed absolutely to support the

contentions. Trial court has given reasons, which can be seldom

said to be not adhering to the factual position.

5. The application appears to have been moved to protract

litigation as observed by the trial court. In the circumstances,

there does not appear to be any case made out for intervention

in the order impugned.

6. As such, writ petition stands dismissed. Rule stands

discharged.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.]

drp/wp10018-15