Shri. Laxman Arjun Hudekar vs. Shri. Shivaji Vithoba Patil

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3387 OF 2017 Shri. Laxman Arjun Hudekar And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S Shri. Shivaji Vithoba Patil And Ors. ....Respondent G. N. Salunke For Petitioner CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 22nd March, 2017 P.C. : Not on board. Taken on production board. Matter to be placed on 29/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3387 OF 2017 Shri. Laxman Arjun Hudekar & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shri. Shivaji Vithoba Patil & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. G.N. Salunkhe for petitioners. CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 28 JANUARY 2019. P.C:- . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. By this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner/original plaintiff is challenging the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gadhinglaj below Exhibit-38 in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2013 recasting the issues. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the next date before the trial Court is 05.02.2019. He submits that in view of these facts, further proceedings in Regular Civil Suit No.14 of 2013 to be stayed. It is to be noted that though the petition was filed on 21.12.2016, till today the respondents are not served. Therefore, there is no question of granting any ad-interim relief at this stage without hearing the respondent. Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the impugned order, I am satisfied that the petitioner has made out case for following order : a) Registry is directed to issue notice before admission to the respondents stating that if time permits matter be decided finally at the stage of admission, returnable on 29.04.2019. b) In addition to the usual mode of service petitioner is permitted to serve the respondents by private notice along with entire proceedings either by RPAD and or by hand delivery and file Affidavit of Service to that effect on or before 18.04.2019. c) Stand over to 29.04.2019. d) At present no ad-interim relief. (K.K.TATED, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3387 OF 2017 Shri. Laxman Arjun Hudekar And Ors. ....Petitioner V/S Shri. Shivaji Vithoba Patil And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J DATE : 13th September, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 11/11/2019 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3387 OF 2017 Laxman Arjun Hudekar & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Shivaji Vithoba Patil & Ors. .. Respondents ................... Mr. G.N. Salunke for the Petitioners Mr. Amar Bodke i/by Mr. M.V. Thorat for Respondent No. 1 ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 7, 2020. P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Bodke informs the Court that Advocate Mr. M.V. Thorat representing for respondent No. 1 has taken discharge and given NOC to respondent No. 1. Hence, he seeks time for respondent No. 1 to take necessary steps. 3. Mr. Salunke, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is very old. However, he accedes to the request of Mr. Bodke and does not make any issue out of it. He submits that fair chance is required to be given to the contesting parties to appear before the Court. This stand of Mr. Salunke is appreciated by the Court. 4. Petitioners are directed to serve respondent No. 1 by private notice and to file affidavit to that effect on or before the next date. Hamdust granted. 5. Mr. Salunke submits that prima facie it appears that strategy of respondent No. 1 is to prolong and delay the proceedings of the trial Court which are at the stage of evidence. He, therefore, submits that the Court should consider grant of interim relief and stay the trial Court proceedings. 6. On perusal of order dated 28.1.2019 passed by this Court, I am not inclined to grant ad-interim relief as of today in absence of respondent No. 1 considering that the present advocate of respondent No. 1 has sought discharge. However, this Court shall consider grant of ad-interim relief on the next date subject to Mr. Salunke placing on record the affidavit of service. 2 of 3 7. S.O to 6.3.2020. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ravindra M. Amberkar Digitally signed by Ravindra M. Amberkar Date: 2020.02.10 11:14:51 +0530