Shri Bhaulal S/O Lataru Shende ... vs Shri Asaram S/O Dharma Gaupale
2021 Latest Caselaw 9117 Bom

sa59..2021.                                                                                                    1/2


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

                                    SECOND APPEAL NO. 59/2021

  Shri Bhaulal s/o Latru Shende (Dead) thr. LR's Shri Niranjan s/o Bhaulal Shende and others.
                                              V/s
                               Shri Asaram s/o Dharma Gaupale

*******************************************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                               Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
*******************************************************************************************************************
                 Shri Akhtar Nawab Ansari, Advocate for appellant.

                 CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 13th JULY, 2021.

Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the learned Counsel agreed that the audio and visual quality was proper.

2. Heard learned advocate for the appellant.

3. This Second Appeal is filed by the original defendants. The decision of the trial Court was in their favour [dismissal of suit] whereas the decision of the First Appellate Court went against them [appeal was allowed].

4. Issue notice before admission, returnable after eight weeks.

sa59..2021. 2/2

Civil Application (CAS) No. 137/2021

Heard.

2. There is a contention that the First Appellate Court haphazardly decided the first appeal. Even the points for determination were cryptic and not as contemplated under Order XLI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. The suit is for possession on the basis of encroachment made by present appellants. It seems that there is a dispute amongst the parties about identity of the suit land. According to appellants, it is their own land and according to the respondent/plaintiff, it is his own land. In addition to that the appellants claim that the suit land was acquired while erecting a tank.

4. The First Appellate Court opined that there is no need for the evidence of the surveyor. The impugned judgment needs to be stayed still appearance of the respondent. Hence, interim relief is granted in terms of prayer Clause- (i) till appearance of respondent.

5. Appellants to serve the respondent by R.P.A.D. in addition to usual mode of service.

JUDGE rkn