Lucky Lalchand Kruplani vs Dharamdas Sanmukhdas Kruplani ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 850 Bom

                                                                           902-wp-10015-2019.doc
  Sonali


         Digitally
         signed by
         SONALI
                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SONALI
MILIND
         MILIND
         PATIL                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PATIL    Date:
         2023.01.24
         18:23:55
         +0530
                                          WRIT PETITION NO.10015 OF 2019

                      Lucky Lalchand Kruplani                                     ...Petitioner
                         Versus
                      Dharamdas Sanmukhdas Kruplani & Ors.                        ...Respondents


                      Mr. Avinash Avhad, for the Petitioner.

                      Mr. Arjun S. Pawar, for Respondent No.1.

                                                  CORAM : MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED : 24th JANUARY 2023 P.C. :

1. Heard Mr. Avinash Avhad, learned counsel appearing for

the Petitioner and Mr. Arjun Pawar, learned counsel appearing

for Respondent No.1.

2. The impugned orders in the present Writ Petition are the

orders dated 21st January 2015 passed below Exhibit 86 in

Regular Darkhast No.6 of 2003 and order dated 21 st June 2019

passed below Exhibit 96 in Regular Darkhast No.6 of 2003.

3. The Petitioner is admittedly the heir and legal

representative of original Defendant No.2. By Regular Darkhast

No.6 of 2003, the decree dated 31st December 1992 passed by

the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Daund in Regular Civil

902-wp-10015-2019.doc Sonali

Suit No.51 of 1984 is sought to be executed. It is admitted

position that the said decree has been confirmed upto the

Supreme Court.

4. The only contention of the Petitioner is that the suit

property is partly demolished therefore, it cannot be identified.

The learned Executing Court has come to the conclusion that

the suit property is identified by boundaries and therefore,

decree can be executed.

5. Apart from challenging order dated 21st June 2019, the

Petitioner is also challenging the order dated 21st January

2015. The petition challenging the order dated 21st January

2015 is filed in September 2019 i.e. after almost 4 years and 8

months. There is no explanation given for delay in filing the

petition.

6. It is admitted position that as the Petitioner is heir and

legal representative of Judgment Debtor No.2, he is unable to

point out any independent right, title and interest in the suit

property. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed however,

with no order as to costs.

[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]