Sushila @ Sulgabai Tippanna ... vs Dr. Vijay Ningonda Patil And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 3146 Bom

                                                                   18.22057.19 wpst.doc

ISM
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                           WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 22057 OF 2019

      Sushila @ Sulgabai Tippanna                                 ....Petitioners
      Chougule (Vadar) and Ors

              V/s.

      Dr. Vijay Ningonda Patil and another                        .....Respondents

      Mr. Makrand Kale i/b Mr. Sachin Hande a/w Mr. Abhay Jadhavar for
      the Petitioner
      Mr. Umesh Mankapure for Respondents


                               CORAM :   NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                               DATE:     FEBRUARY 17, 2021.

      P.C.:

      1]      For the execution of Judgment dated 15/12/2000 pursuant to

the Decree drawn thereunder passed in R.C.S. No. 98 of 1998 by the

Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Jath, Application Exh. 16 & 17

were taken out by the Respondent-Decree Holder for detention of

Judgment-Debtor in Civil prison for breach of injunction and also for

removal of obstruction under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908.

18.22057.19 wpst.doc

2] Application Exh. 16 for detention of the Petitioner Judgment-

Debtor came to be rejected, however, Application Exh. 17 came to be

allowed wherein Court has exercised powers under Order 21 Rule 32

of the CPC and directed removal of impediment.

3] Order passed below Exh. 17 is questioned on the ground that

objections raised by the Judgment-Debtor are not decided by the

Court below. He would invite attention of this Court to the reply fled

to Exh. 16 and 17 so as to substantiate his claim. It is also claimed

that Decree of 2000 is sought to be executed in 2017.

4] Shri. Mankapure, learned counsel for the Respondent-Decree

holder would support the impugned order.

5] After having considered rival submissions, it is noticed that

Decree is for perpetual injunction and in the said background, issue

of limitation sought to be agitated by the Petitioner is of hardly any

consequence.

18.22057.19 wpst.doc

6] Apart from above, the fact remains that under the Decree

passed in favour of Respondent, Petitioner is restrained from causing

any obstruction and in exercise of said powers, Court has allowed

Application Exh. 17 particularly having regard to the provisions of

Order 21 Rule 32 of the CPC.

7] No case for interference is made out. Petition fails, stands

dismissed.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]