Bombay High Court
Ramdayal Gulabachand Khaldelwal ... vs Mahendra S/O Badrinarayan ... on 29 June, 2021
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Pushpa V. Ganediwala
LPA 63-10 1 Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL N0.63/2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3710/2005 (D)
WITH
C.A.Z. NO.6/2019
1. Ramdayal S/o Gulabchand Khandelwal,
Aged about 77 years, Occu-Cultivator, R/o Pusala,
Tahsil-Warud, District Amravati (Maharashtra State).
2. Ramakant Radhakisan Khandelwal,
Aged about 64 years, Occu-Cultivator, R/o Pusala,
Tahsil-Warud, District Amravati (Maharashtra State).
3. Sau.Urmila Rameshchandra Khandelwal,
Aged about 60 years, Occu-Household Work,
R/o Kharsoli, Tah-Narkhed, District Nagpur
(Maharashtra State).
4. Prakash Motilal Khandelwal,
Aged 58 years, Occu-Cultivator & Trader.
5. Rajendra Motilal Khandelwal,
Aged 48 years, Occu-Cultivator & Trader.
6. Virendra Motilal Khandelwal,
Aged 44 years, Occu-Cultivator & Trader.
7. Shailendra Motilal Khandelwal,
Aged 42 years, Occu-Cultivator & Trader.
8. Sanjay Motilal Khandelwal,
Aged 40 years, Occu-Cultivator & Trader.
Appellant No.4 to 8 all resident of Warud, Tahsil -
Warud, District-Amravati (Maharashtra State).
9. Mamta W/o Mohanlal Khandelwal,
Aged 46 years, Occu-Household Work,
R/o Khandwa, Tahsil & District Khandwa.
Appellant No.1 to 9 by Mukhtyar Prakash Motilal
Khandelwal, Petitioner No.4, resident of Warud,
Tah - Warud, Dist-Amraoti. APPELLANTS
.....VERSUS.....
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2021 02:43:01 :::
LPA 63-10 2 Judgment
1. Mahendra S/o Badrinarayan Khandelwal,
Aged - Adult, Occu-Business, R/o Rajan
Complex, Pandhurna Chowk, At Post Warud,
District Amravati. (Maharashtra State).
2. Narendra S/o Badrinarayan Khandelwal,
Aged - Adult, Occu-Business,
R/o Ring Road, At Post Warud,
District-Amravati (Maharashtra State).
3. Yogendra S/o Badrinarayan Khandelwal,
Aged - Adult, Occu-Not Known,
R/o H.P. Petrol Pump Approach Road, At
Post Warud, District-Amravati (Maharashtra State).
4. Smt.Shashikala W/o Shivnarayan Khandelwal,
Aged - Adult, Occu-Not Known,
R/o C/o Shivnarayan Omkarlal Khandelwal,
At Post Ambagadh Chowki,
District-Rajnandgaon (Madhya Pradesh).
5. Smt.Maya W/o Shyamji Khandelwal,
Aged - Adult, Occu-Not Known,
R/o Shyamji Madanlal Khandelwal
(Sandalpurwale) Chaman Chowk, At Post
Khategaon District Devas (Madhya Pradesh).
6. Smt.Manjudevi W/o Rajkumar Khandelwal,
Aged - Adult, Occu-Business, R/o Main Road,
Adilabad-504001 (Andhra Pradesh).
7. Sau.Alka W/o Arunji Khandelwal,
Aged - Adult, Occu-Business,
R/o Amdapur, Tahsil-Chikhali,
District Buldana (Maharashtra State). RESPONDENTS
Shri H.D. Dangre, counsel for the appellants.
Shri J.T. Gilda, Senior Advocate with Shri A.J. Gilda, counsel for the
respondents.
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND SMT.PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, JJ.
DATE ON WHICH ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD : 24TH JUNE, 2021.
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED : 29TH JUNE, 2021.
::: Uploaded on - 30/06/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 01/07/2021 02:43:01 :::
LPA 63-10 3 Judgment
JUDGMENT (PER : A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
In this letters patent appeal filed under Clause 15 of the
Letters Patent, the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.3710 of 2005 decided on 19.12.2008 has been challenged. By the
said judgment, the writ petition has been dismissed consequently
upholding the order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division),
Morshi in execution proceedings on 03.10.1988 holding the decree in
question to be inexecutable. C.A.Z. No.6 of 2019 has been filed by the
respondents seeking dismissal of the letters patent appeal on the ground
that the same is not maintainable.
2. For considering the objection raised by the respondents to the
maintainability of the letters patent appeal, it would be necessary to refer
to certain relevant facts. The predecessors of the appellants had filed
Regular Civil Suit No.134 of 1967 against the predecessor of the respondents
who was described as a licensee for his eviction alongwith a further
prayer for restoration of possession of the suit property which consisted
of a tiled room alongwith kitchen. During the pendency of the said suit
the parties entered into a compromise by which it was undertaken by the
defendant that in Diwali-1987 he would vacate the suit premises. On
failure to vacate the same the plaintiffs were entitled to execute the said
decree and recover possession. The compromise decree was accordingly
LPA 63-10 4 Judgment
passed in terms of the compromise. Since the defendant did not vacate
the suit premises as per the compromise-deed the plaintiffs filed
execution proceedings being Regular Darkhast No.10 of 1988. In the said
execution proceedings the judgment debtor raised an objection to the
maintainability of the execution proceedings, reasons for which are not
required to be gone into. In short, it was the case of the judgment debtor
that the decree passed on compromise was not executable and hence the
execution proceedings were liable to be dismissed. On 03.10.1988 the
learned Judge of the Executing Court upheld that objection and dismissed
the execution proceedings by holding the same to be not maintainable in
view of the fact that the decree was not executable. The decree holders
challenged that order before the Appellate Court but that appeal was
dismissed as not maintainable.
3. The decree holders then filed Writ Petition No.3710 of 2005
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the
order passed by the Executing Court. Prayer (1) in the said writ petition
reads as under:-
"1. Quash order dated 20.2.1995 passed by the
District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal
No.318/88 arising out of order dated 3.10.1988 passed
by the Civil Judge, Junior Division Morshi in Regular
Execution Case 10/1988."
LPA 63-10 5 Judgment
The learned Single Judge by his judgment dated 19.12.2008
upheld the order passed by the Executing Court and consequently
dismissed the said writ petition. The aforesaid judgment of the learned
Single Judge has been challenged in this letters patent appeal. The
appeal was admitted on 28.01.2010. It is thereafter that the respondents
filed C.A.Z. No.6 of 2019 seeking dismissal of the letters patent appeal on
the ground that it was not maintainable.
4. Shri J.T. Gilda, learned Senior Advocate for the respondents
submitted that what was impugned in the writ petition was an order
passed by the Civil Court in execution proceedings. The jurisdiction
exercised by the learned Single Judge while entertaining and thereafter
dismissing the writ petition was under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India especially in view of the fact that the order impugned in that writ
petition was one passed by the Civil Court. It was his submission that as
exception to the order passed by the Civil Court was taken in the writ
petition the jurisdiction exercised while entertaining the same was under
Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence the intra-Court appeal
challenging that adjudication was not maintainable. Placing reliance on
the decision in Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji Versus State of Gujarat &
Others [(2015) 9 SCC 1], it was his submission that as it was held that no
writ could be issued against the order passed by the Civil Court, the
LPA 63-10 6 Judgment
letters patent appeal was not maintainable. Further reference was made
to the order dated 10.06.2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court
in C.A.Z. No.24 of 2015 [Abdul Khalil S/o Sheikh Mohammad Versus
Gopal Radhakisan Kabra]. It was thus urged that as the letters patent
appeal was not maintainable, the prayer made in the civil application was
liable to be granted and the letters patent appeal ought to be dismissed as
not maintainable.
5. Per contra, Shri H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for the
appellants referred to the proceedings that were initiated with the filing
of Regular Civil Suit No.134 of 1967. According to the learned counsel in
view of Clause 8 of the compromise-deed that was executed between the
parties a right was given to the plaintiffs to execute the decree if the
defendant failed to vacate the premises at the end of Diwali-1987. As
possession was not handed over the execution proceedings were rightly
filed and the Executing Court by failing to entertain the same had refused
to exercise jurisdiction that was duly vested in it. This very objection
based on failure on the part of the Executing Court to exercise jurisdiction
was raised in the writ petition that was filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India. The learned counsel invited our attention to
the averments as well as prayers made in the writ petition and submitted
that since it was pleaded that a writ of certiorari was liable to be issued in
LPA 63-10 7 Judgment
the facts of the case and the petitioners having invoked Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India, the letters patent appeal was clearly
maintainable. In that regard, he placed reliance on the judgment of the
Full Bench in M/s Advani Oerlikon Ltd. Versus Machindra Govind
Makasare & Others [2011 (2) Mh.L.J. 916] and especially the answers
given to the questions that were formulated while answering the
reference. It was his contention that since there was a jurisdictional error
committed by the learned Judge of the Executing Court in refusing to
entertain the execution proceedings, the petitioners had invoked
certiorari jurisdiction before the learned Single Judge and in terms of the
judgment of the Full Bench, the letters patent appeal was maintainable.
He then submitted that while the jurisdictional aspect had been discussed
in detail by the Full Bench in M/s Advani Oerlikon Ltd. (supra) this aspect
did not fall for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jogendrasinhji (supra). In the light of the judgment of the Full Bench, the
letters patent appeal was maintainable and hence it ought to be
adjudicated on merits. He also urged that the letters patent appeal
having been admitted in the year 2010, the objection as to maintainability
could not be permitted to be raised at a belated stage especially when the
appeal was ripe for being finally heard. He therefore submitted that the
civil application filed by the respondents was liable to be rejected.
LPA 63-10 8 Judgment
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on the
question of maintainability of the letters patent appeal at length. We
have also given due consideration to the rival submissions. In our view
the objection raised to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal
deserves to be upheld as the letters patent appeal is not maintainable.
The factual aspects referred to above are undisputed and it is
common ground that before Executing Court the appellants - decree
holders had sought execution of the compromise decree passed in Regular
Civil Suit No.134 of 1987. The Executing Court held that compromise
decree to be inexecutable and consequently dismissed the execution
proceedings. It is thus clear that what was impugned in Writ Petition
No.3710 of 2005 was the order dated 03.10.1988 passed by the learned
Civil Judge (Junior Division), Morshi in Execution Case No.10 of 1988.
In other words, an order passed by the Civil Court was challenged in the
aforesaid writ petition that was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India. The question therefore that has to be considered
while deciding the objection raised by the respondents to the
maintainability of the letters patent appeal is whether a letters patent
appeal challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge in a writ
petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in
which an order passed by the Civil Court was impugned, is maintainable?
LPA 63-10 9 Judgment
7. In Surya Dev Rai Versus Ram Chander Rai [2004 (1) Mh.L.J.
633 (SC)], it was held by a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court that an order passed by the Civil Court was amenable to
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On a
reference made as regards the correctness of that view in Radhey Shyam
& Another Versus Chhabi Nath & Others [2015 (3) Mh.L.J. 296 (SC)] a
larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court answered the same by
holding that judicial orders of the Civil Court were not amenable to writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that the
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which was
distinct from the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India could alone be exercised. The view as taken in Surya Dev Rai
(supra) was overruled. Thereafter in Jogendrasinhji (supra) the question
of maintainability of letters patent appeal was again considered and after
referring to the judgment of the larger Bench in Radhey Shyam (supra), it
was held in paragraph 18 as under:-
"18. The aforesaid authoritative pronouncement
makes it clear as day that an order passed by a civil court
can only be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India and the parameters of challenge have been
clearly laid down by this Court in series of decisions
which have been referred to by a three-Judge Bench in
Radhey Shyam, which is a binding precedent. Needless to
emphasise that once it is exclusively assailable under
LPA 63-10 10 Judgment
Article 227 of the Constitution of India, no intra-court
appeal is maintainable."
Thereafter in paragraph 30 it was observed as under:-
"30. From the aforesaid pronouncements, it is
graphically clear that maintainability of a letters patent
appeal would depend upon the pleadings in the writ
petition, the nature and character of the order passed by
the learned Single Judge, the type of directions issued
regard being had to the jurisdictional perspectives in the
constitutional context. Barring the civil court, from which
order as held by the three-Judge Bench in Radhey Shyam
that a writ petition can lie only under Article 227 of the
Constitution, orders from tribunals cannot always be
regarded for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the
Constitution. ............... "
It was thus held in paragraph 45.2 that an order passed by the Civil Court
was only amenable to be scrutinized by the High Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which was
different from Article 226 of the Constitution of India and as held in
Radhey Shyam (supra) no writ could be issued against the order passed
by the Civil Court and therefore no letters patent appeal would be
maintainable.
Thereafter in Ram Kishan Fauji Versus State of Haryana &
others [(2017) 5 SCC 533] it was reiterated by a Bench of three Hon'ble
Judges in paragraph 42.3 as under:-
LPA 63-10 11 Judgment
"42.3. A writ petition which assails the order of a
civil court in the High Court has to be understood, in all
circumstances, to be a challenge under Article 227 of the
Constitution and determination by the High Court under
the said Article and, hence, no intra-court appeal is
entertainable."
It is thus clear that in view of aforesaid pronouncements in Radhey
Shyam, Jogendrasinhji and Ram Kishan Fauji (supra) an order passed by
the Civil Court could be scrutinized by the High Court in exercise of
jurisdiction only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and as no
writ of certiorari could be issued for quashing the order passed by the
Civil Court, a letters patent appeal challenging such adjudication by the
learned Single Judge would not be maintainable.
8. Shri H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for the appellant however
sought to contend that as the appellants had raised a jurisdictional
challenge in the writ petition that was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India and had specifically contended that the
Executing Court had failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by invoking
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the letters patent
appeal was maintainable. Heavy reliance was placed on the decision of
the Full Bench of this Court in M/s Advani Oerlikon Ltd. (supra). His
emphasis was on the answer given to Question No.2 by the Full Bench
which answer reads as under:-
LPA 63-10 12 Judgment
"20. .............
Re:1 .............
Re:2 It is not a correct proposition in law that
jurisdictional errors or errors resulting in miscarriage of
justice committed by subordinate Courts/Tribunals can
only be corrected by this Court in exercise of powers
under Article 227 of the Constitution. The writ of
certiorari can be issued under Article 226 of the
Constitution where the subordinate Court or Tribunal
commits an error of jurisdiction. Where the subordinate
Court or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of
it or fails to exercise jurisdiction, that error of jurisdiction
can be corrected. Moreover when the Court or Tribunal
has acted illegally or improperly such as in breach of the
principles of natural justice the writ of certiorari is
available under Article 226."
It was thus urged that as this aspect was not dealt with by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions relied upon by the learned
counsel for the respondents and as the appellants had invoked jurisdiction
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the letters patent
appeal was maintainable. We are not in a position to accept this
contention as what has been urged by the learned counsel has not been so
held by the Full Bench. The question considered by the Full Bench was as
to whether jurisdictional error or errors resulting in miscarriage of justice
committed by Authorities which are subordinate to it could be corrected
LPA 63-10 13 Judgment
by invoking powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Another question considered was whether jurisdictional error or errors
resulting in miscarriage of justice committed by subordinate
Courts/Tribunals could be corrected by the High Court in exercise of
powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? Perusal of
paragraph 7 of the Full Bench indicates that note was taken of the fact
that the decision in Surya Dev Rai (supra) had been dissented by in
Radhey Shyam (supra) and referred to a Larger Bench. In that context it
was observed as under:-
"7. .............The referring judgment adopts the view
that the aforesaid observations in Surya Dev Rai are not
consistent with the law which has been consistently followed
in earlier decisions. The reference to the larger Bench of the
correctness of the decision in Surya Dev Rai was because the
issues arose out of a properly constituted suit in a civil court
for the grant of an injunction. The position that the writ of
certiorari is available to correct errors of jurisdiction on the
part of an inferior Court or tribunal is not affected. That the
writ of certiorari under Article 226 is available to correct
errors of jurisdiction of inferior Court or Tribunals is settled
in view of a consistent line of authority, reading together Hari
Vishnu Kamath, Custodian of Evacuee Property, Basappa and
Syed Yakoob. The decision of nine judges in Mirajkar in fact
specifically cited the judgment in Basappa. " (emphasis
supplied by us)
LPA 63-10 14 Judgment
It thus becomes clear that the Full Bench has referred to the adjudication
by a Civil Court on one hand and that by an inferior Court or Tribunal on
the other. It was held that the position that a writ of certiorari was
available to correct the errors of jurisdiction on the part of an inferior
Court or Tribunal was not affected. These observations are clearly with
regard to errors of jurisdiction of inferior Courts/Tribunals as
distinguished from orders of a Civil Court. The ultimate answers given by
the Full Bench are in the context of errors of jurisdiction committed by
the subordinate Court or Tribunal in contradiction with errors by the Civil
Court. The learned counsel for the appellants is not right in contending
that these observations were applicable even to adjudication by the Civil
Court as that is not the ratio of the judgment of the Full Bench.
9. We may note that in paragraph 63 of the judgment of the
Constitution Bench in Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar Versus State of
Maharashtra [AIR 1967 SC 1], it was held that "certiorari does not lie to
quash the judgments of inferior Courts of civil jurisdiction". Another Full
Bench judgment of this Court in Motilal Khamdeo Rokde & Others
Versus Balkrushna Baliram Lokhande (since deceased) through L.Rs.
Chandan s/o Balkrishna Lokhande & Others [2020(1) Mh.L.J. 110] has in
the light of the aforesaid law held as under:-
LPA 63-10 15 Judgment
"8. .............. Though the Civil Courts are
subordinate to the High Court, the expression "inferior
Court" is not referable to "Judicial Court". It is thus clear
to us that the judicial orders of the Civil Court are not
amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. There are no precedents in India
for the High Courts to issue writs to subordinate Courts.
The jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari under Article
226 is distinct from one under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. We, therefore, hold that a writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the orders passed by the Judicial/Civil Courts,
subordinate to the High Court and seeking a writ of
certiorari, is not maintainable. .............."
In the light of the aforesaid position of law which is now
settled, it is clear that what was impugned in the writ petition filed by the
petitioners was an order passed by the Civil Court in execution
proceedings for executing a decree passed by the Civil Court. Though the
writ petition was titled as one under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, in the light of the law laid down in Radhey Shyam
& another (supra) as followed in Jogendrasinhji (supra) which was
reiterated in Ram Kishan Fauji (supra) and thereafter applied in Motilal
(supra), the letters patent appeal is not maintainable as the jurisdiction
exercised by the learned Single Judge was only under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India.
LPA 63-10 16 Judgment
10. Coming to the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants that the letters patent appeal having been admitted it ought to
be heard on merits instead of deciding the question as regards its
maintainability, it must be noted that the objection to maintainability of
the letters patent appeal has been raised in view of the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jogendrasinhji (supra). Objections of
various nature could be raised to the maintainability of proceedings which
could include the proceedings itself not being tenable or on the ground of
availability of an alternate remedy. The nature of objection to the
maintainability of the proceedings would be relevant. An objection to the
maintainability of proceedings based on lack of jurisdiction is not one that
could be waived and would warrant adjudication irrespective of the stage
of the proceedings it is raised. On the other hand, an objection based on
availability of an alternate remedy can be considered in the backdrop of
self-imposed restrictions as laid down and discretion can be exercised by
considering the stage at which such objection is raised. We may in the
passing note that the proposition of law that once a petition has been
admitted it could never be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy
has been held to be not an absolute proposition of law in State of Uttar
Pradesh & Another Versus Uttar Pradesh Rajya Khanij Vikas Nigam
Sangharsh Samiti & Others [(2008) 12 SCC 675]. In the present case the
objection to the maintainability of the letters patent appeal is a
LPA 63-10 17 Judgment
jurisdictional aspect that goes to the root of the matter and we therefore
do not find any reason for not considering the objection raised to the
maintainability of the letters patent appeal at this stage despite the fact
that the letters patent appeal was admitted in the year 2010.
11. As noted above the larger Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jogendrasinhji (supra) has held in clear terms that an order
passed by the Civil Court is amenable to scrutiny by the High Court only
in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In
other words, no letters patent appeal would be maintainable against a
judgment in a writ petition raising challenge to the order passed by the
Civil Court as the jurisdiction exercised by the Single Judge in such
proceedings is only under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As a
result of the law laid down in Jogendrasinhji (supra) it will have to be
held that the letters patent appeal itself is not tenable. This is for the
reason that what was done by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said
decision was stating the correct position of law as regards the nature of
jurisdiction exercisable in writ jurisdiction while entertaining challenge to
an order passed by the civil Court.
In this regard, we may refer to the following observations in
paragraph 59 of the decision in Lily Thomas & Others Versus Union of
India & Others [(2000) 6 SCC 224]:-
LPA 63-10 18 Judgment
"59. ......... It is a settled principle that
the interpretation of a provision of law relates
back to the date of the law itself and
cannot be prospective from the date of the
judgment because concededly the Court does not legislate
but only gives an interpretation to an existing
law. ..............."
The observations in paragraph 42 of the decision in Assistant
Commissioner, Income Tax, Rajkot Versus Saurashtra Kutch Stock
Exchange Ltd. [2008(12) Scale 582] are also relevant and the same read
thus:-
"42. In our judgment, it is also well-settled
that a judicial decision acts retrospectively.
According to Blackstonian theory, it is not the
function of the Court to pronounce a 'new rule' but to
maintain and expound the 'old one'. In other words,
Judges do not make law, they only discover or find the
correct law. The law has always been the same. If a
subsequent decision alters the earlier one, it (the later
decision) does not make new law. It only discovers the
correct principle of law which has to be applied
retrospectively. To put it differently, even where an
earlier decision of the Court operated for quite some time,
the decision rendered later on would have retrospective
effect clarifying the legal position which was earlier not
correctly understood."
LPA 63-10 19 Judgment
It thus becomes clear that in the light of the decision in Jogendrasinhji
(supra) the letters patent appeal is not maintainable. Mere fact that it
was admitted cannot be a reason to preclude the Court for examining the
jurisdictional aspect of its tenability especially when the objection raised
is that in law the letters patent appeal itself was not maintainable.
12. Accordingly, the preliminary objection raised to the
maintainability of the letters patent appeal is upheld. The civil
application is allowed. The letters patent appeal is dismissed as not
maintainable. Needless to state that the appellants are free to seek
redressal of their grievances that were raised in the letters patent appeal
by initiating appropriate proceedings. All questions on merits are kept
expressly open. The parties shall bear their own costs.
(SMT.PUSHPA V. GANEDIWALA, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
APTE
