Bombay High Court
Prakash Bajirao Ingle vs Bajirao Lahanuji Ingle on 20 July, 2021
Bench: Manish Pitale
14-wp544.20.odt
1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 544 OF 2020
Prakash Bajirao Ingle
-Vs.-
Bajirao Lahanuji Ingle and others
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr.U.J.Deshpande, counsel for the petitioners.
Mr.N.R.Tekade, counsel fro the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 20.07.2021
Hearing was conducted through video
conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that the
audio and visual quality was proper.
2. On 01/07/2021, this Court (Coram: Rohit B.
Deo, J.) has passed the following order.
"Hearing was conducted through video
conferencing and the learned counsel agreed that
the audio and visual quality was proper.
I was not inclined to entertain the
petition.
2. However, the learned counsel Mr. U.J.
Deshpande who appears on behalf of the
petitioners requested that his clients be granted
two months to vacate the premises since the
marriage of the daughter of the petitioner 1 is
scheduled to be solemnized soon.
3. To enable the petitioners to file on
record usual undertaking, stand over next
week."
KHUNTE
14-wp544.20.odt
3. Mr. U. J. Deshpande, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the above
quoted order was passed in the backdrop of order dated
16/10/2020, passed by this Court when notice was
issued on the specific contention raised on behalf of the
petitioners that there is no provision under the
Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens
Act, 2007, for ousting the petitioners. It was submitted
that the learned counsel for the petitioners had placed
on record certain judgments of this Court, wherein it
has been categorically held that such a power is indeed
available under section 23 of the Act of 2007. The
learned counsel for the petitioners then submitted that
even if there is a power under the Act of 2007 for
passing such an order, the petitioners are entitled to
demonstrate that the order on merits directing ouster of
the petitioners is unsustainable. It is submitted that this
aspect was not considered by this Court when order
dated 01/07/2021 was passed.
4. On the other hand, Mr. N. R. Tekade, learned
counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4,
submitted that the submissions pertaining to the merits
of the matter were already considered and the Court
was not inclined to accept the same.
5. In this backdrop, when the learned counsel for
the petitioners made an attempt to make submissions in
respect of the merits of the matter, this Court found it
fit to direct that this writ petition in the peculiar facts
and circumstances and the rival submissions made by
KHUNTE
14-wp544.20.odt
the learned counsel for the parties, needs to be placed
before the same Hon'ble Judge, who had passed the
order dated 01/07/2021. It would be in the interest of
justice that the petition is accordingly placed before the
Court (Coram: Rohit B. Deo, J.), who had passed the
order dated 01/07/2021.
6. Accordingly, the Registry to take steps
immediately for listing of the present petition as
directed above.
JUDGE
KHUNTE
