Bombay High Court
Anwar Khan Sattar Khan And Others vs Lalanbai Baburao Ahir And Others on 17 March, 2017
Bench: S.B. Shukre
Writ Petition No.330/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.330 OF 2016
1. Anwar Khan s/o Sattar Khan
Age 38 years, Occu. Business
R/o Rahmat Nagar, Nanded,
Tq. and Dist. Nanded
2. Noor Jahan Begam w/o Gaffar Khan,
Age 35 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Nizamabad, Tq. and
Dist. Nizamabad (A.P.)
3. Shaikh Amin s/o Shaikh Hussain,
Age 43 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Maheboob Nagar, Nanded,
Tq. and Dist. Nanded. .... ... PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. Lalanbai w/o Baburao Ahir,
Age 58 years, Occu. Household
2. Gokul s/o Baburao Ahir,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agri. & Business
3. Santosh s/o Baburao Ahir,
Age 23 years, Occu. Agri. & Business,
R.Nos.1 to 3 R/o Kala Mandir,
Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.
4. Shobha w/o Hemraj Bhorewal,
Age 39 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Murgi Talaw, Jalna,
Tq. and Dist. Jalna
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 01:13:42 :::
Writ Petition No.330/2016
2
5. Chanda w/o Nandlal Gurkhude,
Age 38 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Pingale Galli, Beed,
Tq. and Dist. Beed.
6. Geeta w/o Gopal Gurkhude,
Age39 years, Occu. Household,
R/o Pingale Galli, Beed,
Tq. and Dist. Beed.
7. Rekha w/o Kishor Tangde,
Age 33 years, Occ. Household,
R/o Dalalwadi, Aurangabad,
Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad
8. Durga w/o Praphull Mandale,
Age 29 years, Occu.Household,
R/o Chandur Bazaar, Tq. Paratwada,
Dist. Amravati
9. Hiralal s/o Shankarlal Ahir,
Age 48 years, Occu. Agri. & Business
10. Pralhad s/o Shankarlal Ahir,
Age 45 years, Occu. Agri. & Business,
R.Nos.9 & 10 R/o Gavalipura,
Nanded, Tq. and Dist. Nanded.
11. Babu Khan s/o Sattar Khan,
Age 45 years, Occu. Business,
R/o Devi Nagar, Deglur Naka, Nanded
Tq. and Dist. Nanded
(Respondent No.1 formal party
and notice is not necessary) ... RESPONDENTS
.....
Shri H.I. Pathan, Advocate for petitioners
Shri P.P. Uttarwar, Advocate for R.No.1 to 8
Shri P.V. Ambade, Advocate for R.No.9 and 10
.....
::: Uploaded on - 17/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 18/03/2017 01:13:42 :::
Writ Petition No.330/2016
3
CORAM: S. B. SHUKRE, J.
DATED: 17th March, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. Pathan, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Mr. Uttarwar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 8 and Mr.
Ambade, learned counsel for respondent Nos.9 and 10.
Respondent No.11 is not contesting party and notice also has not
been issued to him. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and
heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the contesting
parties.
2. On going through the documents placed on record, I
find that the trial Court has not considered appropriately the
contentions that the wife of original defendant No.4 was not
keeping well and that, even there were some documents placed
on record in support of the said contention. I find that, these
defendant Nos.4 to 6 have disclosed sufficient cause to condone
the delay occurred in this case. However, for the inconvenience
caused to the other side, appropriate costs will have to be
imposed upon the petitioners.
3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and
Writ Petition No.330/2016
impugned order is quashed. The application vide Exh.61 is
allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two
thousand) to each of the original defendants (respondent Nos.1
to 8) within a period of four weeks from today and on payment of
such costs, the written statement filed by these defendants shall
be taken on record.
. Rule made absolute accordingly.
( S. B. SHUKRE )
JUDGE
fmp/
