Bombay High Court
Ganu Dhondi Ingale (Decd) Through ... vs Nana Maruti Ingale (Decd) Through ... on 4 March, 2021
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
Dusane 1/4 18 wp 8140.2016.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8140 OF 2016
Ganu Dhondi Ingale .... Petitioners
(Since deceased) thru' his heirs
& LRs, Sau. Vishnu Ganu Ingale
& Ors.
Vs.
Nana Maruti Ingale .... Respondents
(Since deceased) thru' his heirs
& LRs., Sau. Malan Nana Ingale
& Ors.
Mr. Girish S. Godbole i/by Mr. Rajaram V. Bansode for Petitioners.
Mr. S.S. Patwardhan i/by Purushottam Chavan for Respondents
Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
Date : 4th MARCH, 2021
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Godbole, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners- Judgment debtors.
2. Regular Civil Suit No. 87 of 1964 preferred by one Ganu for
partition and possession came to be decreed in 1967. The said decree
Dusane 2/4 18 wp 8140.2016.doc
was confirmed in an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 225 of 1967
resulting in filing of execution proceedings being Regular Darkhast No.
2 of 1969.
3. In the fresh execution proceedings being Regular Darkhast
No. 68 of 2009, in compliance with the provisions of Section 54 of
C.P.C., the executing Court forwarded the decree for execution by
effecting partition by meets and bounds to the Collector/his
subordinate officers.
4. The Petitioner, a party to the execution proceedings, took
out review proceedings under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rules 1
and 2 of C.P.C. seeking review. The application for review was
accompanying with a prayer for condonation of delay. Vide impugned
order dated 23rd September, 2015, the Court below rejected the prayer
for condonation of delay. As such, this petition.
5. The submissions of Shri. Godbole are that in an earlier
round of execution being R.D. No.219 of 1969, the decree for partition
was already executed as could be inferred from the order of disposal of
Dusane 3/4 18 wp 8140.2016.doc
the said execution proceedings passed on 27 th September, 2015. In that
background, the fresh execution proceedings were maintainable.
According to him, the delay caused in preferring an application for
review was justified as the Petitioners, a rustic persons are not aware of
their legal rights, are not properly advised. It is also claimed that the
Petitioners were pursuing the remedy before the revenue authorities
and as such delay was caused.
6. The Counsel for the Respondents supports the order
impugned.
7. As far as the earlier execution proceedings being Regular
Darkhast No. 219 of 2016 is concerned, though same was disposed of
vide order dated 27th September, 1999, it is difficult to infer from the
said order that the decree for partition, which is under execution has
attained finality. Rather, it is apparent that the execution proceedings
in the earlier round of execution were not taken to its logical end and
no finality was attained in the matter of drawing partition decree.
Dusane 4/4 18 wp 8140.2016.doc
8. This Court has appreciated contentions of Mr. Godbole that
the Petitioner is a rustic person and was not given proper advise to
prefer the present review application within time. The Petitioner was
party to the Civil suit for partition and thereafter to the execution
proceedings. In that view of the matter, it cannot be inferred that the
Petitioner has no knowledge about the conduct of the legal
proceedings. Rather steps taken by the Petitioner of objecting the
execution proceedings before the revenue authorities, sufficiently
speaks of the knowledge of the Petitioner about the pendency of
execution and the passing of the order under Section 54 of C.P.C.
9. In that view of the matter, the Court below was justified in
rejecting the prayer for condonation of delay as the Petitioner has failed
to establish sufficient cause in support of prayer for condonation of
delay.
10. In that view of the matter, no case for interference in he
impugned order is made out. The petition fails, dismissed.
( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)
