Friday, 08, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Shrikant Murlidhar Sharma vs Pranshankar B. Rajguru And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 3958 Bom

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3958 Bom
Judgement Date : 20 April, 2023

Bombay High Court
Shrikant Murlidhar Sharma vs Pranshankar B. Rajguru And Ors on 20 April, 2023
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2023:BHC-AS:12162
                                                                                  31 WP 3475.23.doc


                    Dusane

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO.3475 OF 2023


                    Shrikant Murlidhar Sharma              ...Petitioner

                            V/s.
                    Pranshankar B. Rajguru & Ors. ...Respondents



                    Ms. Shweta Sharma for Petitioner.
                    Mr. Gulabsingh S. Yadav for Respondent No.1.

                                               CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATE: 20th APRIL 2023

P.C.:

1. Heard Ms. Shweta Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for

the Petitioner and Mr. Gulabsingh Yadav, learned Counsel

appearing for Respondent No.1.

2. The Petitioner i.e. original Plaintiff No. 4 is challenging the

legality and validity of the order dated 13 th September 2022

passed by the learned Appellate Bench of Small Causes Court at

Bandra, Mumbai in Marji Application No.13 of 2022 in Appeal

No.53 of 2011, by which the Marji Application was allowed and

Accounts Department/Nazir of Small Causes Court was directed

to pay Rs.3,56,424/- alongwith interest to the Defendants.

31 WP 3475.23.doc

3. The factual position on record shows that the learned Trial

court decreed the suit bearing R.A.E. Suit No. 24 of 2040 by the

judgment and decree dated 6th May 2011. The said decree was

challenged by the Respondent by filing (A-1) Appeal No. 53 of

2011.

4. The learned Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated

20th October 2021 set aside the judgment and decree passed by

the learned Trial Court and remanded back the matter to the

learned Trial Court for re-hearing from the stage of argument

and by directing that the said Suit bearing R.A.E. Suit No. 24 of

2004 be decided by taking into consideration the cross-

examination of PW-1, Kamlakant Murlidhar Sharma recorded in

R.A.E. Suit No. 23 of 2004.

5. As the decree of eviction was set aside and the suit was

remanded back, the application was filed in that Appeal to

withdraw the amount deposited in the Appeal and the said

application was allowed.

6. It is the contention of Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel

appearing for the Petitioner that after the remand also, now by

judgment and decree dated 17th December 2022, the said suit

has been decreed and therefore the Respondent No.1 be

directed to re-deposit the said amount. She further submits that

the Respondent No.1 has filed an appeal challenging the said

31 WP 3475.23.doc

decree dated 17th December 2022 and ex parte order of stay has

been passed.

7. It is undisputed position that Rs.2,000/- per month was

directed to be deposited in Appeal No. 53 of 2011, which was

filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 6th May 2011

passed in R.A.E. Suit No. 24 of 2004. Accordingly the aggregate

amount of Rs.3,56,424/- was deposited. It is also undisputed

position that said decree dated 6th May 2011 was set aside by

the Appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 20th October

2022. The said amount of Rs.2,000/- was directed to be

deposited in terms of the judgment passed by Atma Ram

Properties (P) Ltd. Vs. Federal Motors (P) Ltd. 1 and the said

order has been passed by exercising power under Order 41, Rule

5 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 i.e. the condition imposed

while staying execution of judgment and decree dated 6th May

2011. As the said decree was set aside by the Appellate Court

by judgment dated 20th October 2021, there is no illegality or

irregularity in passing order 13th September 2022 directing

refund of said amount. Therefore, no substance in the present

petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed, however, with no order

as to costs.

1. (2005) 1 Supreme Court Cases 705.

31 WP 3475.23.doc

8. It is clarified that as far as the new appeal, which has been

filed by Respondent No. 1 challenging the judgment and decree

dated 17th December 2022 passed in R.A.E. Suit No. 24 of

2004, the learned Appellate Court is required to pass fresh order

in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Atma Ram

Properties (supra). All contentions in that behalf are kept

open.

9. Subject to above clarification, the Writ Petition is

dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.

(MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.)

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter