M/S. Maniratna Enterprises ... vs Smt. Ratna Narayan Thakare Decd ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 2728 Bom

                                                                      27.2958.20 wpst.doc

ISM
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                          WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 2958 OF 2020
                                         WITH
                       INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 469 OF 2021

      M/s. Maniratna Enterprises                                     ....Petitioners
      through Partners and others

              V/s.

      Smt. Ratna Narayan Thakare                                     .....Respondents
      Decd Through LHRS and others

      Mr. Prasad B. Kulkarni for the Petitioner
      Mr. Rahul Thakur for Respondents


                               CORAM :    NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                               DATE:      FEBRUARY 10, 2021.

      P.C.:

      1]      In a Suit for specifc performance being Special Civil Suit No. 29

of 2012 based on an unregistered agreement of sale dated

30/05/2005, case of the Petitioner is, Application Exh. 82 for

referring the aforesaid document i.e. agreement of sale to

handwriting expert's opinion came to be rejected without any basis.

27.2958.20 wpst.doc

2] By drawing support from the Judgment of this Court in the

matter of Srikant Balwant Nalawade V/s. Bajarang Yashwant

Nimbalkar and others [2014 (1) Mh.L.J.] the submissions are,

document was required to be referred in view of defence raised by the

Respondent-Defendant denying their signature on the agreement of

sale. According to him, even if the Suit is at advance stage, Petitioner

can be put to certain conditions.

3] Counsel for the Respondents informs that Petitioner has

intentionally delaying the Suit and more than 100 adjournments are

sought by the Petitioner.

4]     Considered rival submissions.




5]     It is not in dispute that recording of evidence of the Defendant

has already commenced.




6]     As such, evidence of the Plaintiff-Petitioner is already closed







                                                          27.2958.20 wpst.doc

and that being so, it was for the Plaintiff-Petitioner to move such an

Application at the beginning of recording of his evidence. Suit is

already expedited by this Court and the Trial Court is required to

adhere to the said schedule fxed by this Court.

7] Apart from above, this Court cannot be oblivious to the conduct

of the Petitioner of getting suit adjourned time and again so as to

prolong the same.

8] As the Petitioner was not diligent while pursuing the remedy, no

fault could be noticed with the order impugned. Even the Judgment

in the matter of Srikant Balwant Nalawade [cited supra] will also not

help the Petitioner in the aforesaid background. That being so, no

case for interference is made out. Petition as such fails, stands

dismissed.

9] Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in view of

dismissal of the Petition, interim order passed by this Court be

27.2958.20 wpst.doc

continued for a period of 4 weeks.

10] Since the Petition is already dismissed and Suit was expedited

by this Court by order passed in 2015 to be concluded within one

year, no case for continuation of interim relief is made out. Same also

stands rejected.

11] In view of dismissal of the Petition, Interim Application also

stands disposed of.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]