Padminibai Ambadas Kadam @ ... vs Shrikrishna Gopinath Parsewar ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 958 Bom

                                                 Writ Petition No.11789/2014
                                        1


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


                       WRIT PETITION NO.11789 OF 2014



 1.       Padminibai d/o Ambadas Kadam,
          Sow. Padminibai w/o Hanmant Chothawe
          (after marriage)
          Age 26 years, Occu. Household,
          R/o Chothawe Galli,
          Taluka and District Latur.

 2.       Mangal d/o Ambadas Kadam,
          Age 22 years, Occu. Household,
          R/o Nandgaon, Taluka and
          District Latur.                     ...      PETITIONERS

          VERSUS

 1.       Shriksirhna Gopinath Parsewar,
          Age 76 years, Occu. Business,
          R/o Opp. Shivneri Gate, Market Yard,
          Kava Road, Latur.

 2.       Pandurang Ambadas Kadam,
          Age 30 years, Occu. Business,

 3.       Kalawati w/o Ambadas Kadam,
          Age 68 years, Occu. Household

 4.       Nanda w/o Bibhishan Jadhav,
          Age 48 years, Occu. Household,

          Nos.2 to 4 R/o Patel Chowk,
          Taluka and District Latur.          ...      RESPONDENTS


                               .....
 Shri Amit S. Deshpande, Advocate for petitioners
 Shri A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for respondent No.1
                               .....




::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2017                  ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2017 00:39:51 :::
                                                          Writ Petition No.11789/2014
                                         2


                               CORAM:          S. B. SHUKRE, J.

                               DATED:          22nd March, 2017.


 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for respondent No.1. Rule. Rule made returnable

forthwith and heard finally by consent of learned counsel for the

parties.

2. The impugned order has been passed on an

application filed under Order 21 Rule 89 of the Code of Civil

Procedure. This application admittedly has been filed after expiry

of 50 days from the date of sale and thus, it was beyond

limitation. That apart, the thirst of the objections taken in the

application is non-following of the procedural requirements of

Order 21 Rule 66, in particular sub-rule (2) of the Code of Civil

Procedure. Non-following of these procedural requirements falls

into the category of material irregularity as contemplated under

Order 21 Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it does not

fall within the scope of enquiry under Order 21 Rule 89 of the

Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, I do not see any patent

illegality or perversity in the impugned order. There is no merit

in this petition. The petition deserves to be dismissed and stands

Writ Petition No.11789/2014

dismissed with costs. Rule is discharged.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has

submitted that, stay to the execution of the decree be continued

for a period of six weeks to enable him to approach before the

Apex Court. The request is opposed by learned counsel for

respondent No.1. Considering the fact that another application

filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of the Civil Procedure Code is

already pending before the Executing Court, no prejudice is going

to be caused to the petitioners by refusing the stay. Accordingly

the request is rejected.

( S. B. SHUKRE ) JUDGE

fmp/