Ramkunwar Kundanlal Gupta Since ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 9714 Bom

                                                              60WP8011
                                        1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       60 WRIT PETITION NO. 8011 OF 2021

               RAMKUNWAR KUNDANLAL GUPTA SINCE DEAD
                             AND OTHERS
                               VERSUS
                THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

                   Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.S. Thombre.
                   AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 : D.R. Kale.

                                    CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA &
                                            R.N. LADDHA, JJ.

DATED : 26.07.2021

PER COURT :

Mr. Thombre, the learned Advocate submits that the

respondent No. 2 had decided the proceedings filed by the present

petitioner under its judgment and order dated 10.10.2018. In the

Civil Court also the matter was settled amongst the parties.

2. Now present respondent No. 8 has filed an objection to the said

judgment. The notices have been issued to the petitioners by the

respondent No. 2. The learned counsel submits that the proceeding

filed by respondent No. 8 is not in the nature of review. The

respondent No. 2 cannot sit over its own order, still the notices are

issued to the petitioners to appear in the matter. The respondent No.

2 does not have the powers of review, nor the proceedings filed by

60WP8011

respondent No. 8 are in the nature of the review. The respondent No.

2 does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the objection filed by the

respondent No. 8 and to take up the proceedings.

3. We have also heard the learned AGP.

4. The respondent No. 2 has issued notice to the petitioners. The

petitioners have every opportunity to appear before the respondent

No. 2 and put forth their stand. The petitioners may raise all the

points such as maintainability and jurisdiction of the respondent No.

2. The respondent No. 2 has to consider all the contentions raised by

the petitioners and all the parties and then has to take a decision

upon it.

5. As only notice has been issued by the respondent No. 2 and all

contentions are open to be raised by the petitioners before respondent

No. 2, we are not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition at present.

6. As the petitioners have opportunity to raise all their contentions

including the maintainability of the objection and the jurisdiction of

the respondent No. 2 to reconsider its judgment. We are at present

not entertaining the Writ Petition.

60WP8011

7. In case, further orders are passed adverse to the interest of the

petitioners, the petitioners will have a right to agitate.

8. Writ Petition, as such, is disposed of. All contentions are kept

open. No costs.

( R.N. LADDHA, J. ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. )

S.P.C.