All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2009 Kashi Mitha Tandel. .. Petitioner. vs. Chief of Police, Nani Daman, & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the petitioner. Mr. R.M. More, APP., for the Respondent/State. CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A. A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 23RD NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C. : Issue notice to respondents returnable two weeks. Notice be sent by registered post A.D., in addition to usual mode of service. S.O. to 7.12.2009. ( J. N. PATEL, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No.1836/2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr Manoj Shirsat i/b Uday P. Warunjikar for the Petitioner. Mr D.A. Nalavade – for Union of India for Respondent No.1. Mr S.N. Gawate, A.P.P.,for the State. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 23RD MARCH, 2010 P.C. :- Mr Nalavade, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, seeks three week's time to file reply affidavit. He may do so with an advance copy thereof to the advocate for the petitioner. Stand over to 12th April, 2010. (A.R.JOSHI,J.) (D.B.BHOSALE,J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Writ Petition No.1836 of 2009 1 Smt.Kashi Mitha Tandel Petitioner Vs. Chief of Police, Nani Daman, Union Territory & ors. Respondents Mr.R.M.More i/b. Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for petitioner. Mr.J.P.Yagnik, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. June 17, 2010. P.C. We are informed across the bar that Mr.Nalawade has been hospitalised and though affidavit of the police office is filed, a copy of the same has not yet been served on the learned counsel for the petitioner by Mr.Nalawade. Stand over for two weeks. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.) srk

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1836 OF 2009 Smt. Kashi Mitha Tandel ....Petitioner. Vs. Chief of Police, Nani Daman, Union Territory & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Uday Warunjikar a/w Mr. Rahul More for the Petitioner. Mr. D.A. Nalawade, Special P.P. for U.O.I. Mr. J.P. Yagnik, APP for the State. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : 8th July, 2010 P.C.: 1 Heard Mr. Warunjikar a/w Mr.Rahul More, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Nalawade, the Special P.P. for the Respondents. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed by Shri K.B. Mahajan, P.S.I., Khanvel in the Union Territory of Dadara and Nagar Haveli. 2 The affidavit clearly states that the report received from the Government Examiner, GEQD, Hyderabad dated 15/02/2010 supports, prima facie, the complainant's case. 3 Mr. Nalawade, further states that the affiant Shri K.B. Mahajan has been transferred and in his place Mr. M.R. Rohit, P.I. from Daman Police station, is the I.O.. We direct the I.O. to take further steps as required under the Criminal Procedure Code including filing of chargesheet under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Competent Court as expeditiously as possible and preferably before 7th August, 2010. 4 The Petition is disposed off in terms of the above directions. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)

Order - Status 8: Dusane 1/1 wp6529.2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6529 OF 2016 Fernandes John Salestin .... Petitioner Vs. Dy. Collector (ENC) & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. V.S. Deokar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.R. Mitkari, AGP for Respondent no.1 – State Mr. R. Narula i/by Jhangiani Narula & Associates for Respondent no.2. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 17th June, 2016 P.C. 1 Mr. Deokar, the learned advocate for the petitioner seeks to withdraw the writ petition. The petition is allowed to be withdrawn. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)

Order - Status 6: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1014 of 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1015 of 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1016 of 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr.P.M. Pradhan i/b M.L.Patil for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 21st February 2011 P.C. : Counsel for the petitioner states that the facts in this petition are identical with the facts in writ petition no.1017/11, save difference in the suit numbers. Hence for the reasons recorded in the order passed today in Writ Petition No.1017/11, petitioner is directed to produce copies of the orders passed by the appellate court condoning the delay in filing of the appeal. S.O for one week. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Mr. Sachin Patil i/b Mr. Manoj A. Patil for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Jain for respondent no.1B. Mr. Bipin Joshi for respondent no.2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 28TH FEBRUARY 2011 P.C. : Colleague of Mr. Manoj Patil, advocate for the petitioner, prays for an adjournment on the ground that Mr. Patil is ill. S.O. for a week. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 11: (Wps 1014, 1015, 1016,1017 of 2011 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3544 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.353 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.355 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 ALONG WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 356 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2011 Gulambhai Valibhai Raje ...Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat (Deceased through LRs) Jaya Suresh Bhagat and Ors. ...Respondents (Wps 1014, 1015, 1016,1017 of 2011 ) And Vinod Kalyanji Bhagat& Anr. ...Applicants/ Interveners ----- Mr. Manoj Patil for Petitioner Mr. Bipin Joshi for Applicants Mr. Lalit V. Jain for Respondent Nos. 1(b) ----- CORAM: V.M. KANADE J. DATED: 14th March, 2011 P.C. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks one week's time. This application for adjournment is opposed by the learned counsel for the Respondents. He submitted that the mater is pending for quite some time due to the repeated requests for adjournment made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. It is also submitted that the order dated 21st February, 2011 has not been complied by the Petitioner. As a last chance, stand over for one week. No further adjournment will be granted. The Petitioner shall comply with the order passed by the Learned Single Judge of this Court dated 21st February, 2011. (V.M. KANADE J.)

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 - CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1014 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 354 OF 2011 AND CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1015 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 353 OF 2011 AND CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1016 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 355 OF 2011 AND CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 1017 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 356 OF 2011 Gulambhai Valibhai Raje ...Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kalyani Bhagat (since deceased, represented through the LRs) & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. P. M. Pradhan i/b Manoj A. Patil, for the Applicants. Mr. R. D. Mishra & Vijay R. Dubey. for Respondent No. 1A , 1B. Mr. Bipin Joshi, for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : APRIL 27, 2011 P.C. . Place the matters on board for final disposal at the stage of admission on 5th July, 2011. Parties to file their compilation and the furnish the copies thereof to the other side before the next date. The decree has already been executed and the respondents have taken possession. The respondents shall not create any third party rights or induct any third party. 2 - [ V. M. KANADE J.]

Order - Status 50: Ingale FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's Court's or Judge's orders orders Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde a/w Mr.A.B.Vagyani i/b Mr.Manoj A.Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.R.D.Mishra, Advocate for the Respondents No. 1A to 1B. Mr.Bipin Joshi, Advocate for Respondents No. 3 & 4. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 12th February, 2014 P.C. . Heard Mr.Sandeep K.Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.D.Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1A to 1B and Mr.Bipin Joshi, learned Counsel for respondents No. 3 & 4. Since the matters are to be disposed of finally at the state of admission as per order dated 27/04/2011, call for record and proceedings of the case telephonically. The petitioner will file copies of i) plaint ii) report of the court Commissioner and iii) evidence led by the plaintiffs in all the suits and serve the copies in advance on the other side. List the petitions for admission on 26/02/2014 at 3.00 p.m. The parties are put to notice that subject to the time constraint and convenience of the Court, the petitions may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Order - Status 54: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 GULAMBHAI VALIBHAI RAJE )...PETITIONER V/s. SURESH KALYAJI BHAGAT (since deceased) ) JAYA SURESH BHAGAT AND ORS. )...RESPONDENTS Mr.Ashish P. Pawar i/b. Mr.Manoj A. Patil, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Vijay R. Dubey, Advocate for Respondents Nos.1A & 1B. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATE : 2 nd APRIL, 2014. P.C. : 1 Stand over by Two Weeks, to enable the petitioner to file compilation, pursuant to the order dated 27th April 2011. The counsel for Respondents nos.1A & 1B states that Respondent no.1B died on 23rd March 2014. Petitioner to take the suitable steps. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.)

Order - Status 62: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1017 OF 2011 .... .... Gulambhai Valibhai Raje ..Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kalyani Bhagat (Since Deceased) Through L.Rs. And Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Ashish Pawar, Advocate i/b Manoj Patil for Petitioner. Mr. R.D. Mishra, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1A to 1B. Mr. Sachin Pawar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 24 MARCH 2015 P.C.: The learned Counsel for petitioner states that Respondent No.1.B. has expired and seeks time to take necessary steps in that regard. At his request, S.O. to 7 April 2015. [N.M. JAMDAR, J.] S.S.DESHPANDE 1 / 1

Order - Status 66: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 Gulambhai, Son of Valibhai Raje. ] … Petitioner Versus Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat (Since Deceased) ] through legal heirs ] 1A Smt. Jaya Suresh Bhagat and Ors. ] … Respondent Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, Petitioner present in person. Mr. Manoj A. Patil for Petitioner. Mr. V. R. Dubey for Respondent Nos.1A and Ab. CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : JULY 07, 2015 P. C. : Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, Petitioner, appears in person and states that his Advocate is unwell and therefore unable to attend the Court. The record reveals that this matter has been taken up for consideration no less than 54 times. There is an interim order, which affects the Respondents. Nevertheless, at the request of Mr. Gulambhai Valibhai Raje, stand over to 15/07/2015. It is made clear that in case, the Counsel for the Petitioner is not present and does not proceed with the matter on the next occasion, the appropriate orders shall be made, including orders for dismissal of this petition for nonprosecution. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 70: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J. DATE : JULY 29, 2015 P. C. : On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Supplementary and Daily Boards stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date Daily Board 07/09/15 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 32, 33, 08/09/15 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (M. S. SONAK, J.)

Order - Status 78: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 Gulambhai, Son of Valibhai Raje .. Petitioner V e r s u s Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat and Others .. Respondents Mr. Ashish Pawar i/b Manoj A. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. Vijay R. Dubey for Respondent No.1A and 1B. CORAM : M.S. KARNIK, J. DATE : 18 MARCH, 2016. P.C. : . At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, stand over by four weeks. (M.S. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 84: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1015 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1016 OF 2011 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1017 OF 2011 Gulambhai Valibhai Raje … Petitioner Vs. Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat (decd) though LRs Jaya Suresh Bhagat and others … Respondents Mr. Manoj A. Patil for Petitioner in all the Petitions. Mr. Sachin Pawar for Respondents No.3 and 4 in all the Petitions. CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 P.C. : Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel for petitioner and Mr. Pawar, learned Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 in all the Petitions at length. By these Petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'defendant', has challenged - (i) the judgment and decree dated 27.02.2003 passed by the learned Judge, presiding over Court Room No.8 of the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai in R.A.E. Suit No.480/857 of 2002 as also (ii) the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2010 passed by the Appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court in Appeal No.712 of 2007. By these orders, the Courts below decreed the Suit instituted by original plaintiff and directed the defendants to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of Shop No.1 known as "Hotel Cafe Aaram" situate at plot No.212, Vinod Mahal, Worli Market, Worli, Mumbai 400 018 (for short 'suit premises') to the plaintiff. Defendants have also challenged the judgment and order dated 29.01.2011 passed by the learned trial Judge in Miscellaneous Application No.959 of 2010. By that order, the learned trial Judge allowed the application filed by Vinod Kalyanji Bhagat and Tanuja Bhagat filed under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'C.P.C.') and deleted the direction given by the Courts below to the defendants to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. By order dated 27.02.2003, the learned trial Judge decreed the Suit ex-parte after observing that all the defendants were served with the writ of summons. Defendant No.3 remained absent. Defendants No.1 and 2 engaged Counsel to file written statement on record, but failed to file written statement. In short, defendants did not participate in the trial, despite service of writ of summons. Plaintiff filed affidavit of evidence as also produced documents. While decreeing the Suit, the learned trial Judge observed that plaintiff's evidence remained unchallenged as the defendants chose not to contest the Suit. After considering the documents on record including the Court Commissioner's report, the learned trial Judge decreed the Suit ex-parte. Defendants took out Miscellaneous Notice No.247 of 2004 under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The notice was dismissed on 06.07.2004 by the trial Court. Aggrieved by that order, defendants preferred appeal, which was dismissed on 16.03.2006. Aggrieved by these decisions, defendants instituted four Petitions in this Court. All the Petitions were disposed of as not pressed on 25.01.2007. The order passed by this Court reads thus, " Mr.M.P.Vashi for the petitioners. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED: 25TH JANUARY, 2007 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Vashi, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the four petitions submits that he has instructions not to press the writ petitions and seeks liberty to challenge the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 2003 in the appeals before the appropriate court. The writ petitions are disposed of as not pressed with liberty as prayed for. The petitioners to file appeals within four weeks from today. If the appeals are filed, same may be considered on merits in accordance with law. All contentions are kept open. The writ petitions are disposed of." In pursuance of the liberty granted by this Court, defendants preferred substantive appeals under Section 96 of C.P.C. The appeals preferred by the defendants were dismissed on 30.10.2010. After the appeals were disposed of, application under Section 152, as noted earlier, was made out for deleting the direction to handover possession. That application was allowed. It is against the trial Court's and appellate Court's judgment and decree as also order passed in an application under Section 152 of C.P.C., defendant has instituted these Petitions. In support of these Petitions, Mr. Patil strenuously contended that the defendants were not given opportunity to participate and contest the Suit. The learned trial Judge relied upon the Commissioner's report. The learned trial Judge was not justified in relying only upon the Commissioner's report and decreeing the Suit. As the defendants were not given opportunity to contest the Suit, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside thereby permitting defendants to file written statement and also cross-examine plaintiff's witness and lead their evidence. On merits, Mr. Patil submitted that the Courts below were not justified in passing the decree on the ground that defendants No.1 and 2 have carried out additions and alterations of permanent nature and that, defendants No.1 and 2 have unlawfully sublet the suit premises in favour of defendant No.3. As far as the order passed in an application under Section 152 of C.P.C. is concerned, he submitted that none of the parties to the proceedings filed application under Section 152. Application was filed by Vinod Kalyanji Bhagat and Tanuja Bhagat, who were not party to the proceedings. The learned trial Judge was, therefore, not justified in entertaining their application. On the other hand, Mr. Pawar supported the impugned orders. He submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1 died on 30.06.2008 leaving behind, Hitesh Suresh Bhagat (son) and Maniben Kalyanji Bhagat (mother). Advocate for respondent No.1, therefore, addressed a letter to the petitioners, who were the appellants before the appellate Court for amending the appeal memo and bringing on record Maniben Kalyanji Bhagat, mother of respondent No.1 - plaintiff (since deceased). However, petitioners did not suitably amend the appeal memo. He further submitted that Tanuja is the grand-daughter of Maniben and niece of respondent No.1 Suresh Kalyanji Bhagat. Vinod is the real brother of respondent No.1 – Suresh Bhagat. He also relied upon Section 152 of C.P.C. to contend that Court has power to correct clerical mistake on its own motion or on the application made by any of the parties to the proceedings. He submitted that in fact from the record, it would be evident that decree was executed and possession was obtained on 22.03.2004, and therefore, the direction issued by the Courts below against the defendants to handover possession was required to be deleted. He submitted that even in the order dated 27.04.2011, while issuing injunction restraining respondents from creating third party rights or inducting any third party, this Court noted that decree has already been executed and the respondents have taken possession. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I have also perused the material on record. As noted earlier, respondent No.1 had instituted Suit against defendants for recovery of possession of the suit premises. Perusal of the trial Court's order dated 22.02.2003 shows that defendants were duly served with the writ of summons. Though defendants No.1 and 2 engaged Counsel to file written statement, they did not file written statement. Defendant No.3 remained absent. Thus, despite service of suit summons on defendants, they chose to remain absent. During the pendency of the Suit, original plaintiff took out interim notice for appointment of the Court Commissioner. Court Commissioner visited the suit premises after giving notices to the defendants and after inspection, submitted a report along with photographs. After considering the plaintiff's evidence together with documents as also Commissioner's report and after recording that defendants chose not to contest the Suit, the learned trial Judge observed that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff remained unchallenged and accordingly, decreed the Suit. Defendants filed application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside ex-parte decree. As noted earlier, Order 9, Rule 13 application was rejected by the learned trial Judge on 06.07.2004. Appeal preferred therefrom was also dismissed on 16.03.2006. Though defendants instituted four Petitions in this Court challenging these orders, they did not press Writ Petitions and Petitions were disposed of on 25.01.2007. I have already extracted the order dated 25.01.2007. Perusal of the order shows that while giving liberty to the defendants to file appeal, this Court directed that the same shall be considered on merits in accordance with law. Mr. Patil submitted that the impugned decrees passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside as no opportunity was given to the defendants to participate and contest the Suit. It is not possible to accept this submission. In the first place, defendants were duly served with the suit summons. Despite that, they chose not to participate in those proceedings. Secondly, against the ex-parte decree, defendant has as many as 4 options available, namely, (i) filing of application under Order 9, Rule 13; (ii) filing of substantive appeal under Section 96; (iii) filing of Review Petition and lastly, (iv) filing of Suit on the ground that decree was obtained by playing fraud upon the Court. The proceedings filed by the defendants under Order 9, Rule 13 were decided against the defendants with liberty to file substantive appeal under Section 96. In the substantive appeal, defendants have to challenge the decree passed by the trial Court on merits. In other words, in the substantive appeal, defendants cannot be permitted to agitate the points which are available in proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. In view thereof, the Court has to proceed to decide the appeal on its own merits and not on the grounds available for setting aside ex-parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13. In view thereof, it is not possible to accept the submission advanced by Mr. Patil that the impugned decrees are liable to be set aside for giving opportunity thereby restoring the Suits with permission to the defendants to file written statement and cross examine plaintiff's witness and lead evidence in support of their case. As far as merits of the case are concerned, the Courts below have considered the fact that the evidence of the plaintiff remained unchallenged. In view thereof, no fault can be found in the decrees passed by the Courts below. That brings me to the contention advanced by Mr. Patil that application under Section 152 was made by persons, who were not parties to the proceedings. Section 152 of C.P.C. reads thus, 6/8 "152. Amendment of judgments, decrees or orders.- Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. (emphasis supplied) " Mr. Pawar submitted that Maniben died executing Will and appointed Tanuja Bhagat as Executrix. As far as Hitesh Suresh Bhagat is concerned, though he was brought on record, he was arrested in MCOCA case and died. In fact perusal of record shows that on behalf of the original plaintiff, letter dated 15.09.2008 was addressed to the Advocate for defendants for bringing on record Maniben Bhagat, mother of original plaintiff and Hitesh, son of original plaintiff. Vinod is the real brother of original plaintiff – Suresh Bhagat and Tanuja is the grand-daughter of Maniben Bhagat and is also Executrix. In view thereof, it cannot be said that they are totally strangers to the lis between the parties. That apart, Section 152 enables the Court to exercise its power suo motu for correcting any clerical or arithmetical mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the court either of its own motion or on the application of any of the parties. While allowing the application under Section 152, Court has noted that decree was executed on 22.03.2004. This is also evident from - (i) paragraph 5 of the application dated 02.04.2004 wherein defendants No.1 and 2 have stated that possession of the suit premises was forcibly taken on 22.03.2004; (ii) paragraphs 22 and 33 of the trial Court's order dated 06.07.2004 dismissing notice under Order 9, Rule 13. In paragraph 22, the learned trial Judge has noted the submission advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs that the decree was executed on 22.03.2004. In paragraph 33, the learned trial Judge noted that the decree was executed on 22.03.2004, after passing two years. Thereafter, plaintiff has handed over the possession to Mr. Hira Chauhan and Mr. Rahul D. Jadhav by executing leave and licence agreement in their favour on 23.03.2004. Thus, from the record, it is evident that decree was executed and possession was obtained on 22.03.2004. In view thereof, I do not find that the trial Court has committed mistake in deleting the direction issued to the defendants to handover vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. Hence, no case is made out for invocation of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petitions fail and the same are dismissed. At this stage, Mr. Patil orally applies for continuation of the adinterim order dated 27.04.2011 for a period of 12 weeks from today. He further assures that petitioner will not apply for further extension. Mr. Pawar opposes this application. Having regard to the fact that the interim order is operating from 27.04.2011 as also having due regard to the fact that the petitioner intends to challenge this order in the higher Court, I find that the request made by Mr. Patil is reasonable. In view thereof, notwithstanding dismissal of the Petitions, interim order dated 27.04.2011 shall remain in force for a period of 12 weeks from today with express understanding that petitioner will not apply for further extension. Order accordingly. (R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1349 OF 2021 Ramchandra Dhondiba Dhawale ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4987 OF 2021 Govind Krishna Bhanage. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4985 OF 2021 Vinod Shankar Bhatose. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4989 OF 2021 Hariba Tanaji Bhatose. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4986 OF 2021 Shri Narayan Raghu Sapkal. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4988 OF 2021 Shri Ramesh Vithal Gaikwad (Barbar). ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4991 OF 2021 Shri Bajrang Ganpat Jadhav(Rodat). ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1347 OF 2021 Nasima Abdul Deshmukh. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1353 OF 2021 Krishana Haribhau Kadam. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4982 OF 2021 Raziya Bashir Deshmukh.. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1363 OF 2021 Deepak Vithal Sutar. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1350 OF 2021 Lilabai Bhimrao Kadam. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1358 OF 2021 Bhambu Govind Dhawale. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4990 OF 2021 Shri Chandrakant Ramji Jadhav. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4981 OF 2021 Shri Madhukar Sitaram Bhatose. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4983 OF 2021 Ramchandra Dhau Dhawale. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. WITH CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 4984 OF 2021 Yogesh Bhivram Jadhav. ... Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents. Mr. Dhananjay Chavan a/w. Mr. Vijay R. Garad i/b. Mr. R.A. Choudhari, advocate for Petitioners. Mr. V.M. Mali, AGP for State in WP Nos. 1349/2021, 4988/2021, 1353/2021, 1350/2021. Ms. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP for State in WP Nos. 4985/2021, 4991/2021, 1347/2021, 1358/2021. Ms. R.M. Shinde, AGP for State in WP Nos. 4986/2021, 4989/2021, 4990/2021. Ms. M.S.Bane, AGP for State in WP Nos. 4987/2021, 4982/2021, 4990/2021, 4981/2021. Mr. Siddhesh Kalel, AGP for State in WP Nos. 4988/2021, 4983/2021 and 4984/202. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 2, 2021. ARUNA S TALWALKAR Digitally signed by ARUNA S TALWALKAR Date: 2021.09.07 10:52:06 +0530 P.C. 1 In all these petitions, a common order is passed today because it involves the same question; only the factual aspect differs for each petitioner. 2 The petitioners are Project Affected Persons whose lands were acquired for Koyna Dam Project way back in the year 1961. All these petitioners are still waiting for allotment of lands in lieu of the lands, which were acquired. The petitioners have made applications before the authorities as follows :- Sr. No. Name Date of application 1 Shri Ramchandra Dhondiba Dhawale(WP/1349/2021) 29/5/2020 2 Shri Govind Krishna Bhanage(WP/4987/2021) 29/7/2020 3 Shri Vinod Shankar Bhatose(WP/4985/2021) 24/6/2020 4 Shri Hariba Tanaji Bhatose(WP/4989/2021) 24/6/2020 5 Shri Narayan Raghu Sapkal(WP/4986/2021) 24/6/2020 6 Shri Ramesh Vithal Gaikwad(Barbar)(WP/4988/2021) 24/6/2020 7 Shri Bajarang Ganpat Jadhav(RODAT)(WP/4991/2021) 24/6/2020 8 Sou. Nasima Abdul Deshmukh(WP/1347/2021) 29/6/2020 9 Shri Krishana Haribhau Kadam (WP/1353/2021) 29/7/2020 10 Sou. Raziya Bashir Deshmukh(WP/4982/2021) 2/6/2020 11 Shri Deepak Vithal Sutar (WP/1363/2021) 29/7/2020 12 Sou. Lilabai Bhimrao Kadam (WP/1350/2021) 29/5/2020 13 Shri Bhambu Govind Dhawale (WP/1358/2021) 29/5/2020 14 Shri Chandrakant Ramji Jadhav (WP/4990/2021) 24/6/2020 15 Shri Madhukar Sitaram Bhatose(WP/4981/2021) 24/6/2020 16 Shri Ramchandra Dhau Dhawale(WP/4983/2021) 29/5/2020 17 Shri Yogesh Bhivram Jadhav (WP/4984/2021) 5/10/2020 The Petitioners have mentioned in their applications that lands in different survey numbers situated in village Kundevahal, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad be allotted to them. 3 The said applications are still not decided. The petitioners have prayed for allotment of lands. Applications are pending for quite sometime. The petitioners have not been given alternate lands for many years. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we are directing the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to decide the applications of the petitioners for allotment of alternate lands of their choice within 8 weeks from today. With these directions, the petitions are disposed of. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J) (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5479 OF 2008 Mr. L.M.Jamkar ... Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr. M.L.Patil, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. M.P.Thakur, Addl.G.P. for the Respondents. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & J.H.BHATIA,JJ. DATED: 10th October, 2008. P.C. After an enquiry by the Director of Education of Secondary & Higher Secondary, Maharashtra State, Pune, by his letter dated 24.9.2007 informed the Chief Secretary, Education & Sports Department, to dissolve the society and appoint an administrator. However, on 18.10.2007, he withdrew the letter seeking appointment of an Administrator on the ground that he had received a letter from the society dated 15.10.2007 requesting that the discrepancies shown to the Society had been removed and, therefore, they may be given another opportunity 1 before the matter was decided by the Director. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 18.10.2007 on the ground that once the Director had made up his mind after conducting enquiry, he should not have withdraw the letter addressed by him to the Government. We do not feel that the Director of Education has done anything wrong. If some fresh application was made before him by the Society and he was convinced that an opportunity can be given to the Society, he could withdraw the letter earlier written by him in case he has not decided the matter and he will draw his conclusion after giving an opportunity to the Secretary of the Society, who had claimed that he had removed the discrepancies. With these observations, we do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. It is dismissed. However, we direct the Director of Education (Secondary & Higher Secondary) to decide the matter on merits and as expeditiously as possible. (BILAL NAZKI,J.) 2 (J.H.BHATIA,J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5308 OF 2008 Rashmi Gruh Nirman Pvt.Ltd. through its Director Shri Ashwin Tribhuvandas Shah ...Petitioner Versus Unique Shanti Developers through its proprietor Harshad P.Doshi ...Respondent ...... Mrs.Neeta Karnik for Petitioner. Mr.Vineet B.Naik with Mr.Amit Yadkikar i/b M/s.Desai & Diwanji for Respondent. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. AUGUST 7, 2008. P.C. Heard Counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Yadkikar waives notice for Respondent. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. This Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Judgment and Order passed by the Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane dated 27th February 2008 below Exhibit 353 in Special Civil Suit No.362 of 2000. By this order, the Trial Court has rejected the Application preferred by the Petitioner for amendment of written statement. By the said Application, the Petitioner intended to insert Paragraph 20A in the written statement which reads thus: "20A. That the suit filed by Unique Shanti Developer is not maintainable as the plan which is shown to have been sanctioned in the name of unique Shanti Pvt Ltd and the said plan is also sanctioned much after alleged suit agreement and hence the said suit agreement are not binding. Moreover by virtue of provisions of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act 1999, the provisions of Urban Ceiling Act are not applicable to suit lands, this has been done by State of Maharashtra by its government gazette dated 6.12.2007 wherein it has been declared that "Now, therefore in pursuance of clause (2) of article 252 of the Constitution of India, the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly hereby resolves that the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Repeal Act 1999, passed by the parliament be adopted for this state." The Trial Court, however, has rejected the said application essentially on two counts. Firstly, that admission given in the cross-examination cannot be termed as subsequent event to permit bringing on record new facts now pleaded in the proposed amendment. The second reason is that the issuance of Notification referred to in the latter part of Paragraph 20A cannot be the basis to permit amendment to the written statement. Insofar as the first reason is concerned, I am in agreement with the submission of the Petitioner that it is for the first time during the course of cross-examination, the Respondent produced sanctioned plan on 16th October 2007. No reference to the said sanctioned plan was made in the Plaint or produced along with the documents on any earlier occasion. The position now stated in proposed Paragraph 20A is with reference to the said sanctioned plan which has come on record for the first time on 16th October 2007. That indeed was a revelation made to the Petitioner for the first time during the course of trial. Therefore, the Petitioner was entitled to raise such issues as were available to the Petitioner in relation to the said fact. That is the purport of amendment to be introduced in the written statement in terms of Paragraph 20A. By that amendment, the Petitioner would contend that the Suit filed by the Respondent itself is not maintainable as plan was sanctioned in favour of person other than the Respondent/Plaintiff. That fact necessarily has to be pleaded and also proved by the Defendant for which amendment as sought will have to be granted in the interest of justice. Insofar as the opinion recorded by the Trial Court in the context of the latter part of the Paragraph 20A, I am in agreement with the Petitioner that the merits of the efficacy of the Notification dated 1st December 2007 will have to be decided at the trial. The fact remains that the Notification has been issued recently on 1st December 2007. That is a subsequent event which is pleaded in proposed Paragraph 20A. Thus understood, even that part of the amendment will have to be granted. In the circumstances, the impugned Judgment and Order is set-aside and instead Application Exhibit 353 filed by the Petitioner is made absolute with further direction that the Petitioner shall carry out amendment within three weeks from today. The Petitioner who is personally present in Court, through Counsel, assures that the Petitioner will extend full co-operation to the Trial Court for early disposal of the Suit and shall not take recourse to any further applications during the course of trial to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. That assurance is accepted. Needless to observe that as the Petitioner is permitted to amend the written statement by inserting Paragraph 20A and the written statement has been treated as counter claim, the Respondent would be free to file such pleadings in response to the said amended written statement as may be advised. That be done within two weeks from the date the Petitioner carries out amendment in the written statement. Petition disposed of on the above terms. No order as to costs. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6065 OF 2014 Bhalchandra Mohiniraj Pathak and anr. .. Petitioners Versus Madhyam Varigye Sarvodaya Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit through Chairman and ors. .. Respondents Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, advocate for petitioner. Mr. Bhadrashetti with S. D. Chawan i/by Rahul Sopanrao Kate for respondent. --- CORAM : SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA DATED : 24th JULY, 2014. --- P.C. : 1). Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned advocates, the petition is taken on board for final hearing. 2). The short question that arises for consideration in this petition is whether the correspondence between the Chief Promoter of Society, Madhyam Vargye Sarvodaya Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, Pune and the Additional Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, annexed to the order of exemption under Section 19(1)(v) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and regulation) Act, 1976, can be said to be public document. 3). There is a dispute pending in the Cooperative Court between the petitioner and the respondents in which one of the disputed facts is the total strength of membership of respondent no.1, Society. According to the respondents, the membership is restricted to 11 persons and the petitioners, on the other hand contend that, there are as many as 141 members of the Society. During the course of the trial, the petitioners sought to produce photocopies of the letter dated 30th August, 1989 from the Additional Secretary to Government of Maharashtra, Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai to one Shri G. H. Kulkarni, Chief Promoter of respondent no.1, Society and the reply sent by Mr. Kulkarni to the letter alongwith annexures to the letter, in evidence in support of their claim of the membership of the Society by 141 persons. The production of the photocopies as secondary evidence was objected to by the respondents. The objection was upheld by the trial Court and also the lower appellate Court. It was held by the Courts below that, the petitioners have not established the circumstances prescribed for production of secondary evidence and also that the photocopies cannot be said to be secondary evidence. The petitioners had carried the order to this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6350 of 2011. By the order dated 23rd August, 2012, this court dismissed the petition without going into its merits, with an observation that, since the orders under challenge in the petition were interlocutory in nature, interest of the justice would be served if the writ petition was disposed off with a clarification that in the event the final order in the dispute is adverse to the petitioners, they can, while challenging the final order, raise appropriate pleas and in particular in regard to the rejection by the trial court and the lower appellate court of leave to lead secondary evidence. The petitioners then carried the orders further to the Apex Court. However, the Apex Court also did not interfere with the order of this court. 4). It appears that thereafter one out of 141 members, died and his son, found certified copies of the two documents described above in the papers maintained by the deceased member. The certified copies have been obtained from the Tahashil Office, Pune, where apparently the same were produced in connection with the land dealing. The petitioners, then filed another application for tendering in evidence, the certified copies as the secondary evidence. The trial Court, allowed the application by its order dated 12th March, 2014. Being aggrieved by the order, the respondents had preferred revision to the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court, Mumbai Bench at Pune. The Appellate Court allowed the revision by its order dated 19th April, 2014 which order is challenged by the petitioners in the present petition. 5). The reasons set out in the impugned order by the Appellate Court, for allowing the revision, read as follows :- "29. After perusal of documents, which the respondent no.1 and 2 produce on record at Sr. no.1 to 3, it is evidence that, 'these documents are the annexure attached with the order issued by the public officer'. Even though presuming for the sake of argument that, these documents were attached with the order passed by the public officer, such documents cannot be terms as public documents, the provisions of Section 74 and 76 of Evidence Act doesn't apply in the present set of facts. At the most, said document is termed as the part and parcel of the record maintained by the public officer. Thus, doesn't cover within the meaning of the term public document. After perusing these documents, it is also evident that, the certified copies allegedly availed from the Tahasil Office, Pune whereas as per pleadings of the respondent no.1 & 2, the record is maintained by the Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mumbai. It was also responsibility of applicant to explain the proper custody, which the applicants, failed. Thus, on merits also this application deserves to be dismissed. So far as the fourth document is concerned, admittedly same is part and parcel of court record, which can be directly referred. So also it is not explained as to why the fourth document needs to be brought on record, and it is not related to subject matter of dispute." 6). Mr. Bhadrashetti, the learned advocate for the respondent, in seeking to justify the impugned order, submits that the documents in question are essentially correspondence by a private individual with the government department. Therefore, the same cannot fall within the domain of public document as defined in Section 74 of The Indian Evidence Act. His second objection is that, certification of the documents ought to be by the same department that received the document and not by any other department of the Government. The third argument advanced by him is, of the bar by the principle analogous to res-judicata to the second application for production of secondary evidence by the petitioner, the first application having already been decided in the earlier round of proceedings mentioned above. The order in respect thereof has reached finality with the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court. He submits that, the observation by the Co-operative Tribunal, that application is filed solely for the purpose of delaying the trial is justified and he presses for dismissal of the petition. 7). The respondent cannot be allowed to contend that, the second application by the petitioner was barred by, res-judicata, as both the Courts below have negatived the contention and there is no challenge to the finding. The Co-operative Appellate Tribunal at para-23 of the impugned order, has held that the earlier application had been moved under Section 75(a)(b) of The Indian Evidence Act, whereas, the second application is moved under Section 75(e) of The Indian Evidence Act. The two applications being different applications, there was no applicability of principle analogous to res-judicata. 8). The question, therefore, to be considered now is, can the certified copies issued by one department of the Government i.e. Tahasil Office, Pune in respect of the order issued by another office of the Government i.e. Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai alongwith its' annexures, be said to be the public document for the purpose of production in the Court of law. The description of the three documents in question, annexed to the order of exemption, is as follows :- "(a). Letter dated 30/8/1989 issued by Shri. S.V. Yadgikar (Additional Secretary) to Late G.H. Kulkarni. (b). Letter dated 29/9/1989 issued by late G.H. Kulkarni to Housing Development Department. (c). List of Members of Madhaymvargiya Sahakari Griharachna Sanstha Mydt. sent by Late G.H. Kulkarni alongwith his letter dated 29/9/1989." Section 74 of The Indian Evidence Act, which defines the term "public document" reads as under :- "74. Public documents.- The following documents are public documents:- (1) documents forming the acts or records of the acts- (i) of the sovereign authority, (ii) of official bodies and tribunals, and (iii) of public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, [of any part of India or of the Commonwealth], or of a foreign country; (2) public records kept [in any State] of private documents." 9). It appears that the Society had earlier filed application under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 seeking exemption under Section 19(1)(v). The three documents sought to be now produced, relate to the application for exemption. It is the correspondence consisting of a letter received from Housing Development and Special Assistance Department, Mantralaya and reply sent by Chief Promoter, Society to the said Department alongwith the annexure to the letter. The correspondence, therefore, is with a public officer in connection with his office duties. This correspondence is maintained as record for the purpose of grant of exemption under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. This record forms the basis of grant of exemption. As such, it will have to be treated as part of the documents forming records of the acts of public officer. Further, as noted by the Appellate Court, the three documents are annexures to the order passed by the public officer. Once a certified copy of order of a public officer passed in connection with his public duty is produced, it cannot be severed from its annexures because the document, then would become incomplete. Therefore, the annexures to the order will also have to be held admissible in evidence only to the extent of their existence. The truth of the contents of the documents needs to be separately established. Mr. Patwardhan, the learned Advocate for the petitioner does not dispute this position. 10). As regards the certification of the documents by the department different from the department with whom the correspondence had taken place, in my view the same should not create any difficulty. The document had apparently been produced before the office of Tahashil, Pune in connection with the very land and the document filed with the Tahashil Office has been certified by that office and given to the petitioner. Therefore, custody of the document has been established for the purpose of issuing certified copies. In any case, this aspect is always subject to cross examination. The petition is hence allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). 11). At the request of the advocate for the respondent, the order is stayed for a period of four weeks. He makes the statement that the respondent shall not proceed with the trial in the dispute pending before the Cooperative Court during the period of four weeks. (SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)

Order - Status 7: ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6006 OF 2011 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nasik .. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Mahesh Agawekar i/b Ms.Anamik Malhotra for the petitioner Mr.P.G.Sawant 'B' Panel for respondent no.1 Mr.J.D.Khairnar for respondent no.2 CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE: 1st AUGUST, 2011 PC: Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, matter is taken for final hearing and disposed of at the stage of admission itself. By this petition, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner original respondent challenges the order dt. 6.5.2011 passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik, below Ex.U2 filed by respondent no.2 for interim relief to stay the operation and implementation of transfer order dt. 16.12.2010 issued by the petitioner, Zilla Parishad, Nasik. Respondent no.2 is working with the petitioner, Zilla Parishad, Nasik as Desk Officer. Initially, on account of misconduct he was suspended by order dt.1.9.2010. Thereafter, respondent no.2 made representation to the petitioner. Considering respondent no.2's representation, petitioner issued the order dt. 15.12.2010 reinstating respondent no.2 in his original post subject to departmental enquiry. Thereafter, on the next date, petitioner issued transfer order dt.16.12.2010 transferring respondent no.2 on said post to Panchayat Samiti, Surgana. Respondent no.2 joined their as Desk Officer and worked for 4/5 months. Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed a complaint (ULP) No.108 of 2011 before the Industrial Court under Items 3 and 9 of Schedule IV of MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 along with application for interim relief under section 30(2). In the said complaint, respondent no.2 contended that he is suffering 40% disability and same is declared by the Medical Board as per certificate dt.3.3.2005. Thereafter, on the basis of Government Resolution dt.15.04.2004 and 15.12.2004, he is entitled to be posted near his home town i.e. at Nasik. The said interim application was allowed by leaned Member, Industrial Court by impugned order dt.6.5.2011 and directed petitioner, Zilla Parishad, Nasik to allow respondent no.2 to work at Nasik or near Nasik as per Government Resolution No.15.04.2004 and 15.12.2004. Hence, the present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Member of Industrial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that respondent no.2 by way of interim relief is entitled to stay the operation and implementation of the transfer order dt. 16.12.2010. He further submits that initially respondent no.2 was suspended on 1.9.2010 and thereafter, considering his applications, they reinstated him on his original post by order dt.15.12.2010 subject to departmental enquiry. He further submits that departmental enquiry is going on against respondent no.2. He further submits that initially respondent no.2 joined the services as per transfer order dt.16.12.2010 at Panchayat Samiti, Surgana without complaining about his disability and thereafter, filed complaint (ULP) No.108 of 2011. He submits that the main complaint is pending for hearing and final disposal. The Industrial Court by interim relief allowed indirectly prayer in the main complaint itself. Therefore, impugned order passed by learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik, dt.6.5.11 is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the present petition. He submits that as per Government Resolution dt.15.04.2004 and 15.12.2004 respondent no.2 is entitled to the posting near his home town. He submits that respondent no.2 has his house at Nasik. Since beginning he has stayed there. He submits that the Village Surgana is about 50 to 60 kms from Nasik and therefore, it is very difficult for him to attend his duty there. He submits that after joining at Surgana he noticed that due to 40% disability he is facing several difficulties and therefore, he preferred the present complaint. I have gone through the G.R. dt.15.4.04 and 15.12.04. I have also gone through the reinstatement letter dt.15.12.2010 and transfer order dt.16.12.2010. It is to be noted that initially respondent no.2 was suspended in the year 2010. On his request, petitioner reinstated him on 15.10.10 subject to departmental enquiry. Not only that his main complaint challenging the transfer order dt.15.12.2010 is pending. By interim relief learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik indirectly allowed the respondent no.2's main complaint itself. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion that the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik erred in staying operation and implementation of the Tribunal's order dt.16.12.2010 directing petitioner Zilla Parishad, Nasik to allow respondent no.2 to work at Nasik or near Nasik as per G.R. dt.15.4.2010 and 15.12.2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that at present, no post is available at Nasik or near Nasik. Considering these facts, the impugned order passed by the learned Member, Industrial Court, Nasik below Exh.U2 in complaint ULP 108 o 2010 is set aside. 10.Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, hearing of complaint (ULP) No. 108 of 2011 is expedited. 11.Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. (K.K.TATED,J.)