Bombay High Court
Purushottam Shankar Ghodgaonkar vs Gajanan Shankar Ghodgaonkar And ... on 22 January, 2021
Bench: S.P. Deshmukh
1 RAST-24132-18.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
REVIEW APPLICATION STAMP NO. 24132 OF 2018
IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 661 OF 2018
IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 8 OF 2018
Purshottam Shankar Ghodgaonkar .. Applicant
Versus
Gajanan Shankar Ghodgaonkar and others .. Respondents
...
Mr. R. R. Mantri, Advocate for applicant
Mr. S. D. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no.1
...
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4194 OF 2018
Gajanan Shankar Ghodgaonkar .. Applicant
Versus
Purshottam Shankar Ghodgaonkar and others .. Respondents
...
Mr. S. D. Joshi, Advocate for applicant
Mr. R. R. Mantri, Advocate for respondent no.1
...
CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.
DATE : 22nd JANUARY, 2021
PER COURT :-
Heard learned counsel for the parties at quite some length.
2. Civil application has been moved seeking review of order
dated 28th March, 2018 passed in civil application 4194 of 2018 in
civil application no. 661 of 2018 in appeal from order no. 8 of 2018.
2 RAST-24132-18.odt
3. Civil application no. 4194 of 2018 had been moved on behalf
of appellant in appeal from order - original plaintiff purportedly
seeking recall of order dated 06-02-2018 passed in civil application
no. 661 of 2018 stating exigency and hardship to the plaintiff, and
interim measure was extremely necessary to stall the proceeding
before trial court in right earnest. Based on the claimed exigency,
the order had been passed issuing notice to the respondents in civil
application no. 4194 of 2018.
4. During the course of submissions, lot of aspects are being
adverted including about paragraphs no. 7 and 8 of the order on
28-03-2018, however, it stands clarified that the contents in
paragraphs no. 7 and 8 are indeed submissions on behalf of plaintiff
and are not observations of this court and shall not be construed to
be so.
5. The contention on behalf of defendants-respondents in
appeal from order / applicant in review petition, is with respect of
maintainability of civil application no. 4194 of 2018. It is being
referred to that recall application would not be possible from a party
which had been heard, and thus, the application is not
maintainable. Paragraph no. 6 of judgment of the Supreme Court
in a case of Asit Kumar Kar Versus State of West Bengal and others,
reported in, (2009) 2 SCC 703, has been relied on for said purpose.
3 RAST-24132-18.odt
6. Further grievance has been made in respect of service of
order dated 28th March, 2018 contending that it had been served on
defendants-respondents only on 24th April, 2018, just twenty four
hours before the date in the high court, without letting any time
and giving opportunity to the defendants-respondents.
7. According to learned counsel for defendant, conduct of the
appellant has been reprehensible and had been deliberate with a
view to harass the old man - the defendant. Grievance has also
been made that though some papers have been received, however,
proper documents including memo of appeal have not been
received. Having regard to conduct and aforesaid position, review
of the order has been sought.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for appellant in appeal
from order submits that if conduct of appellant is being alleged to
be reprehensible, conduct of defendant has been even more
reprehensible. He submits that despite being aware of proceedings
in high court and notice been issued, deliberately appearance has
been avoided with a view to procrastinate the matter and to see
that the appeal from order is rendered nugatory.
9. Lot of things have been said on either side in respect of
conduct, blaming each other. However, it does not appear to be
necessary to go into the same. While in civil application no. 4194
of 2018, notice has been issued and having regard to that since the
4 RAST-24132-18.odt
purpose underlying the same has been worked out, it appears that,
there is no point in keeping the application pending before this
court. Neither civil application no. 4194 of 2018 had been moved
earlier nor the review application.
10. It is being referred to that appeal from order itself is ready to
be heard, and in fact, learned judge hearing appeal has passed an
order on 10-01-2021 giving a last chance, I do not see any efficacy
in dealing with the matter.
11. I do not consider it expedient to go into the aspects sought to
be raised by either side. Thus, review application along with civil
application no. 4194 of 2018 deserve to be disposed of.
12. As such, civil application no. 4194 of 2018 and review
application stamp no. 24132 of 2018 stand disposed of. This order
would not undermine address by parties to civil application no. 661
of 2018 afresh.
( SUNIL P. DESHMUKH )
JUDGE
rrd
