Smt. Shashikala Laxminarayan ... vs Balaji Sayanna Yajja
2021 Latest Caselaw 9886 Bom

                                                                    4.13265.17 wp.doc

ISM
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 13265 OF 2017
                                         WITH
                         INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3083 OF 2020
                                         WITH
                         INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3053 OF 2020

      Shri. Balaji Sayanna Yejja                                   ....Petitioner

             V/s.

      Smt. Shashikala Laxminarayan Gandhi and                      .....Respondents
      others

                                            WITH
                               WRIT PETITION NO. 4162 OF 2017
                                            WITH
                             CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1741 OF 2019

      Smt. Shashikala Laxminarayan Gandhi and                      .....Petitioners
      others

             V/s.

      Shri. Balaji Sayanna Yejja                                   ....Respondents


      Mr. Rakesh Reddy for the Petitioners in WP 13265/2017 and for
      Respondent in WP 4162/2017 and applicant in both IA
      Mr. Ashok Tajane for Respondent nos. 1 to 6 in WP 13265/2017 and
      for petitioner in WP 4162/2017 and for applicant in both connected IA

                               CORAM :   NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

                               DATE:     JULY 28, 2021.







                                                           4.13265.17 wp.doc



P.C.:

1]      Writ Petition No. 13265/2017 is fled against the order passed

by the Civil Judge Senior Division in Special Civil Suit No. 294/1988

Solapur on the issue of jurisdiction against the petitioner-plaintiff.

2] I am informed that Suit is already decreed on 05/12/2002 and

First Appeal is pending adjudication before the learned District

Judge.

3] In that view of the matter, in my opinion, present petition has

rendered infructuous and is accordingly disposed of. However,

disposal of present writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from

raising the issue of jurisdiction in pending First Appeal in accordance

with law.

4] As a consequence of disposal of Writ Petition, all connected

interim/civil applications stand disposed of.

4.13265.17 wp.doc

5] As far as Writ Petition No. 4162/2017 is concerned, this petition

is by judgment-debtor in decree for specifc performance passed in

Special Civil Suit No. 294/1988. Orders which are challenged are

permitting the decree holder to deposit amount of consideration,

order staying the execution of the decree and also order permitting

the decree holder to serve the petitioner through paper publication.

6] As far the order permitting the decree-holder to serve the

petitioner by paper publication is concerned, the cause in the same

has rendered infructuous as Mr. Ashok Tajane assures that in view of

present petition, they shall appear in the pending appeal by accepting

the service.

7] In that view of the matter, paper publication is no more

require consideration.

8] As far as the issue of permitting respondent-decree holder to

deposit the decretal amount is concerned, such order of deposit is

always without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the

4.13265.17 wp.doc

petitioner-judgment debtor to the said decree. It is expected of

Appellate Court to deal with the issue, if so raised by the petitioner

about the effect and consequence of the order permitting deposit of

the amount beyond the period prescribed in the decree. As such,

petition to that extent permitting respondent-decree-holder to deposit

the amount also does not call for any interference.

9] As far as the order dated 23/09/2016 passed by the Appellate

Court whereby staying the execution of the decree in Special Civil

Suit No. 294/88 is concerned, Appellate Court is directed to deal

with application for condonation of delay preferred by the respondent

decree-holder in the pending appeal expeditiously and in any case

shall decide the same within period of 12 weeks from the date of

production of this order as Mr. Tajane has already assured this Court

that petitioners will be directed to appear in the said matter. As such,

service on non-applicant on the said application for condonation of

delay is complete. No fresh notice is required. Both parties to the

petition assure that they shall appear before the Appellate Court on

09/08/2021.

4.13265.17 wp.doc

10] As far as Civil M.A. No. 333/2014 initiated by the petitioner-

judgment debtor is concerned, let the said proceedings be continued.

However, no fnal order be passed therein until in the Appellate court

proceedings at the behest of decree holder/respondent for

condonation of delay are decided, as has been directed by this Court

vide above order.

11] In view of above observations, Writ Petition No. 4162/2017

stands disposed of.

12] As a consequence of disposal of Writ Petition No. 4162/2017, all

connected interim/civil applications stand disposed of accordingly.

[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]