Changdeo Vithal Girme vs Haribhau Vithal Girme And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 1087 Bom

                                          1               MCA-150.14.doc


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

      MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 150 OF 2014


          Changdeo s/o Vithal Girme
          age 66 years, occup. Agril.,
          R/o Sakuri, Tq. Rahata,
          Dist. Ahmednagar                    .. Applicant

                  versus

 1.       Haribhau s/o Vithal Girme,
          Age : major, occup. Agril.,

 2.       Pandurang s/o Vithal Girme,
          Age : Major, occup. Agril.,

 3.       Laxman s/o Vithal Girme,
          Age : major, occup. Agril.,

 4.       Dnyaneshwar s/o Vithal Girme,
          Age : major, occup. Agril.,

 5.       Sopan s/o Vithal Girme,
          Age : Major, occup. : Agril.,

 6.       Dattatraya s/o Haribhau Girme,
          Age: major, occup. Agril.,

          All r/o Yerandgaon, Tq. Yeola,
          Dist. Nashik

 7.       Kailas s/o Pandurang Girme,
          Age : Major, occup. Agril.,
          R/o Sakuri, Tq. Rahata,
          Dist. Ahmednagar

 8.       Shantabai w/o Dinkar Tilekar,
          Age : major, occup. Household,
          R/o Sonewadi, Tq. Kopargaon,
          Dist. Ahmednagar.

 9.       Gangubai w/o Prabhakar Landge,
          Age : major, occup. Household,
          R/o Ranjankhol, Tq. Rahata,
          Dist. Ahmednagar




::: Uploaded on - 03/05/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 27/08/2017 21:10:37 :::
                                          2                    MCA-150.14.doc


 10.    Parwatibai w/o Karbhari Wagh,
        Age : Major, occup. Household,
        R/o Yerandgaon, Tq. Yeola,
        Dist. Nashik                          .. Respondents
                     ---
 Mr. Yuvraj S. Choudhari, Advocate for applicant
 Mr. C. V. Korhalkar, Advocate for respondents no. 2 and 7


                               CORAM :       SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

                               DATE :        27TH MARCH, 2017


 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties finally by consent.

3. Despite service, respondent no. 3 who had instituted

proceedings in court at Yeola in respect of properties which appear

to be properties in litigation pending at Rahata, is absent.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant points out that as many as

four proceedings are pending for partition and separate possession

of properties, inter alia, comprising the properties involved in

proceedings bearing regular civil suit no. 139 of 2011 pending

before civil judge, junior division, Yeola.

5. Learned counsel further points out that there are three

proceedings bearing regular civil suits no. 237 of 2011, 56 of 2012

and 735 of 2013 pending before civil judge, junior division, Rahata

which include properties involved in regular civil suit no. 139 of

2011 pending in court at Yeola.

3 MCA-150.14.doc

6. Non appearance on behalf of respondent no. 3 who is plaintiff

in regular civil suit no. 139 of 2011 at Yeola to a large extent

appears to be depiction of tacit consent to the request made under

the present application for transfer of regular civil suit no. 139 of

2011 from Yeola to the court where the other three suits referred to

above are pending.

7. Learned counsel for respondents no. 2 and 7 has no

particular objection if the proceedings at Yeola are transferred. He

consents for transfer on instructions.

8. In view of aforesaid, miscellaneous civil application stands

granted in terms of prayer clause (A) and is disposed of.

9. Rule made absolute accordingly.

SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JUDGE pnd