Abdul Rauf Khan Maruf Khan Thro. ... vs Tukaram Ranju Vaidya
2022 Latest Caselaw 5999 Bom

                                                    Second Appeal No.395/2022
                                      :: 1 ::


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                 SECOND APPEAL NO.395 OF 2022 WITH
                  CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9256 OF 2022


 Abdul Rauf Khan s/o Maruf Khan
 and others                                          ... APPELLANTS

          VERSUS

 Tukaram s/o Ranju Vaidya                            ... RESPONDENT

                              .......
 Mr. S.S. Kazi, Advocate for appellants
                               .......

                                  CORAM :       R. G. AVACHAT, J.
                                  DATE   :      28th JUNE, 2022.
 ORDER:

Heard Mr. Kazi, learned counsel for the appellants.

The challenge in this Second Appeal is to the order dated

24/3/2022, passed by Extra Jt. District Judge, Parbhani in

Regular Civil Appeal No.2/2021. Vide impugned judgment

and order/ decree the order dated 30/1/2018 passed by the

Executing Court in Regular Darkhast No.37/2017 came to be

set aside. Vide impugned judgment and order, the appellants

herein have been permanently restrained to obstruct the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the decree holder on

the land Gut No.32, admeasuring 7 Hectors 55 R. It has

further been directed to the concerned police station to give

Second Appeal No.395/2022 :: 2 ::

police protection to the decree holder if an application in that

regard is moved.

2. The decree passed by 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Parbhani way back in November 1988 in Regular Civil

Suit No.13/1988 was put to execution after a lapse of over 29

years and 5 months. True, there is no limitation for execution

of a decree of permanent injunction. It was an ex-parte

decree. The same was put to execution against so called legal

representatives of the original Judgment Debtor. These legal

representative have filed the present Second Appeal. The first

appellate Court treated the proceedings before the Executing

Court as one under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure

Code. The same is incorrect since it was not a decree for

possession of immovable property. The appellants seriously

dispute to be the legal representative of the original Judgment

Debtor. Be that as it may. The peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case leads this Court to issue notice in

this matter and grant ad-interim relief.

3. Issue notice before admission to the respondent,

returnable on 26th July 2022.

Second Appeal No.395/2022 :: 3 ::

4. Till then, there shall be stay to the order dated

24/3/2022, passed by Extra Joint District Judge, Parbhani in

Regular Civil Appeal No.2/2021.

5. It is, however, clarified that the decree for

perpetual injunction passed in favour of the original Decree

Holder still holds the field.

( R. G. AVACHAT ) JUDGE

fmp/-