Anjana Ananda Karadge And Ors vs Pravin Pralhad Shitole And Anr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2261 Bom

                       (18)-WPST-25380-21.doc.

          Digitally
          signed by
                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
          BALAJI
BALAJI    GOVINDRAO
GOVINDRAO PANCHAL
PANCHAL   Date:
          2022.03.08
          15:04:19
          +0530


                                   WRIT PETITION STAMP NO.25380 OF 2021

                       Anjana Ananda Karadge and Ors.                       ..Petitioners
                             Versus
                       Shri. Pravin Pralhad Shitole and Ors.               ..Respondents

                       Mr. Bhooshan R. Mandlik, for the Petitioners.


                                                    CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 7th MARCH, 2022 P.C.

1. This petition is by appellant in Civil Misc. Appeal No.247 of 2019. Petitioners/judgment debtors in RCS No.705 of 2015 suffered a decree on 18th October, 2018 passed by 12th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Kolhapur whereby they were directed to vacate the suit premises within three months from the date of judgment and order by handing over peaceful possession to the decree holder. The petitioners/ judgment debtors were also directed to pay arrears of rent of Rs.3000/- per month from 16 th August, 2014 till actual possession is handed over with accrued interest at the rate of 12% per annum. Feeling aggrieved, aforesaid appeal was preferred which is barred by limitation as there was delay of 332 days in preferring the appeal. Alongwith prayer for condonation of delay, prayer for stay to the execution of decree was moved which is considered at ad-interim stage and rejected vide

BGP. 1 of 3 (18)-WPST-25380-21.doc.

impugned order dated 13th March, 2020. As such, this petition.

2. The submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners/ judgment debtors are, the order impugned does not contain any reasons wherein it can be inferred that the claim put forth was considered and analyzed on merits. According to him, the Court below should grant interim protection in favour of the petitioners with directions to the Appellate Court to decide the prayer for grant of stay on its own merits.

3. In response to the Court's query, it is informed that clause (3) of the judgment and decree whereby financial liability fastened on the petitioners/judgment debtors of directions to pay the arrears of rent from 16th August, 2014 is informed to have not been complied with till this date. Even today also, the petitioners have no such intention to comply with the said order. Aforesaid conduct of the petitioners primarily demonstrates their intention to continue in illegal possession of the suit premises (in spite of complying with the decree for possession) free of cost. The petitioners are seeking equitable relief from this court as their appeal is time barred and they want ad-interim protection. The aforesaid very conduct of the petitioners disentitle them to claim equity from this Court.

4. Apart from above, the fact remains that the order impugned was passed on 13th March, 2020 i.e. almost about two

BGP. 2 of 3 (18)-WPST-25380-21.doc.

years back, wherein ad-interim prayer was rejected. The impugned order discloses sufficient reasons which appear to be germane for rejection of grant of ad-interim protection. That being so, no case for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is made out.

5. As such, petition stands dismissed.

                                         [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]




BGP.                                                     3 of 3