Bombay High Court
Vishwajit S/O Manohar Deshmukh vs Sandip Shankarlal Sojwani on 13 September, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/3 926-wp 5567.2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5567 OF 2022
Vishwajit s/o Manohar Deshmukh
vs.
Sandip Shankarlal Sojwani
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders.
or directions and Registrar's orders.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. S. M. Vaishnav, Advocate for petitioner.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE J.
DATE : 13/09/2022
By this writ petition, the petitioner has
challenged order dated 18/12/2021, 15/03/2022 as
also 15/03/2022, claiming that the said order ought
not to have been passed as a matter of course, even if
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi
and others (2021) 6 SCC 418 was to be taken into
consideration.
2. It is further contended that because of the
said impugned orders, there is every likelihood that
the petitioner will suffer an adverse order in an
KOLHE
2/3 926-wp 5567.2022
application moved by the respondent under Order 38
Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code, which is pending.
3. A perusal of the impugned orders dated
18/12/2021 and 15/03/2022 would show that the
Court below has merely directed the petitioner to
disclose his assets on oath to the extent that he can be
made liable in the suit for recovery of specific amount
filed by the respondent.
4. The petitioner had filed an application at
Exh.37 for review/recall of the order directing him to
disclose his assets on oath. The Court below has
quoted relevant paragraph of the said judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Rahul S. Shah vs.
Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others (supra) and
rejected the said application also.
5. This Court has perused the impugned
orders, as also the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of Rahul S. Shah vs. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi
and others (supra). It is contended on behalf of the
petitioner that since the word "may" is used in the
relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, requiring the defendant to disclose
his assets on oath, the Court below ought to have put
KOLHE
3/3 926-wp 5567.2022
the petitioner to notice and thereupon exercised its
discretion.
6. This Court is not convinced with the
arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner for the
reason that the drift of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has to be appreciated in the backdrop
of excruciating delays in execution of decrees and the
extent to which the plaintiff/decree holder is made to
suffer in our legal system before he or she enjoys the
fruits of the decree.
7. Insofar as the apprehension about the
Court below being influenced by the impugned orders
while deciding application under Order 38 Rule 5 of
the CPC filed by the respondent, appropriate
direction can be given.
8. In view of the above, the writ petition is
dismissed. The Court below is directed to consider
the application under Order 38 Rule 5 of the CPC
filed by the respondent on its own merits, without
being influenced by the impugned orders dated
18/12/2021, 15/03/2022 and 10/08/2022 passed by
the Court below.
Digitally signed byRAVIKANT
CHANDRAKANT KOLHE
JUDGE
Signing Date:14.09.2022
10:38
KOLHE
