Bombay High Court
Ramu Premdas Meshram vs Ramabai Rameshwar Sarode And ... on 1 August, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 8.WP.1406-2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1406 OF 2023
( Ramu Premdas Meshram
Vs.
Smt. Ramabai Rameshwar Sarode & Anr. )
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders
Mr. R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.S. Bhalerao, Advocate for the Respondent No.1.
Mr. G.L. Agrawal, Advocate for the Respondent No.2.
CORAM: AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATED : 1st AUGUST, 2023
Heard.
2. The impugned order dated 03.02.2023 passed
by the learned Special Court, Nagpur, grants stay to the
execution of the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2019
passed in R.C.S. No.510/2013 on the condition to
deposit of Rs. 10,000/- per month by the petitioner who
is the appellant in the Court towards the compensation
for use and occupation of the suit property from the date
of judgment and decree as a condition precedent for the
stay of the execution of the decree.
3. By the order dated 08.03.2023, the following
proposition canvased by Mr. Bhangde, learned counsel
for the petitioner, was recorded:
2 8.WP.1406-2023.odt
" Mr. Bhangde, learned counsel for the
petitioner, at the outset seeks to amend the
petition by raising a ground under Section 3(E)
(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Area
(Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment)
Act 1971 (Slum Act, 1971). Leave is granted.
Amendment be carried out forthwith.
2. The petition challenges the condition of
payment of ₹10,000/- p.m. imposed in the
order dated 3rd February, 2023 passed under
Order 41 Rule 5 of the CPC as a condition for
grant of stay to the judgment and decree dated
12/03/2019 passed in RCS 510/2013.
3. It is contended, that the petitioner was put
in possession of the suit property under an
unregistered sale deed dated 02/9/1994
regarding which a finding has been rendered by
the trial Court in para 30 (page 86) holding
that such was the case, however, since the sale
deed was unregistered, the claim of the
petitioner for title has been rejected on that
ground and so also on the ground that there is
an embargo under Section 3-E of the Slum Act
1971 for sale of the said property within 10
years of allotment, the allotment in this case
having been done in the year 1993. It is
contended, that in such a situation, the suit was
not tenable and what was permissible, was
taking out the proceedings under Section 3-E
(2) of the Slum Act, 1971. It is further
contended that, though the trial Court recorded
finding in para 37 (page 90) of the sale deed
dated 02/9/1994 being affected by the
provisions of Section 3-E(1) of the Slum Act,
1971, it did not take into consideration the
remedy provided under Section 3-E(2) of the
Slum Act, 1971 and therefore, the suit as
claimed was barred under Section 42 of the
Slum Act, 1971."
4. Mr. Bhalerao, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 and Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for
the respondent No.2, though oppose the aforesaid
3 8.WP.1406-2023.odt
contention, however there appears a prima-facie
substance therein considering the language of Section 3-
C(2) of the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement,
Clearance And Redevelopment) Act, 1971 read with
Section 42. In that view of the matter, the condition
imposed by the learned Appellate Court of depositing
Rs.10,000/- per month in the Appellate Court on account
of use and occupation of the suit property, is modified by
reducing the same to Rs. 2,000/- per month during the
pendency of the appeal.
5. The impugned order is accordingly modified
to the above extent and the petition is disposed of.
JUDGE
SD. Bhimte
