All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh. ..Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents. None present. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : AUGUST 6, 2008. P.C. : None appears. Dismissed for non-prosecution. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Order - Status 11: mptIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 of 2008 Mr.Baliram .. Namdev Wagh Petitioner versus State.. of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents ... Mr.K.H. Holambe for the petitioner. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J DATED : 5th September 2008 P.C.: 1.Issue notice returnable on 1st October 2008. 2.In addition, petitioners to serve the respondents by advocate's notice, either personally or by courier/speed post/e-mail/fax, and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. 3.Status quo as of today be maintained with regard to the suit property. (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J)

Order - Status 13: ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.B.V.Holambe-Patil for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED : 1st October, 2008. P.C. . By consent, adjourned for two weeks. Status-quo as ordered on 5th September, 2008 to continue till then. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 16: ssm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.B.V.Holambe-Patil i/by Mr.K.H.Holame for the Petitioner. Mr.Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM : ANOOP V.MOHTA, J. DATED : 17th October, 2008. P.C. . By consent, adjourned to 24/10/2008. Meanwhile, status-quo to continue till then. [ ANOOP V.MOHTA,J.]

Order - Status 20: SPB FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. I IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5757 OF 2008 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders None for the Petitioner. Mr.S.A. Rayrikar, AGP for the State. Mr.Sameer D. Pendse i/by Rajesh Behere for the respondent no.2. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 04TH DECEMBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. None present for the petitioner again. Put on Wednesday, the 10th of December, 2008 as a last chance for dismissal. (Anoop V.Mohta,J)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr. Baliram Namdev Wagh .... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .... Respondents None present for the Petitioner. Shri Sameer D. Pendse i/b Shri Rajesh Behere for Respondent No.2. CORAM: ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATED: DECEMBER 10, 2008 P.C: As none appeared for the petitioner on 2-12-2008, the matter was adjourned to 4-12-2008 for dismissal. On 4-12-2008 as again none appeared for the petitioner, as last chance, the matter was ordered to be listed today under the same caption. Even today when the matter is called out, none appears for the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed for default. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) sjs/D8wp5757.8

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh ...Petitioner V/s. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Ganesh Nagargose i/b Mr.K.H.Holambe Patil for Petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.Pankaj Das for Respondent No.2. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. MARCH 20, 2009. P.C. ...... Request for adjournment is made on the ground that the Advocate on record for the Petitioner is unwell and has been hospitalised. In the circumstances, stand over to 30th April 2009. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5757 OF 2008 Mr.Baliram Namdev Wagh .. Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.K.H.Holambe-Patil for the petitioner. Mr.S.D.Rayrikar, A.G.P for the State. Mr.Milind D. Parab for the respondent no.2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 12th August 2009. P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2. The petitioner is the 1st defendant. The 2nd respondent is the original plaintiff. In a suit filed by the 2nd respondent, ex-parte decree has been passed against the petitioner. The petitioner has made an application for setting aside the exparte decree and has also prayed for stay. In the meanwhile, 2nd respondent filed execution application and applied for arrest and detention of the petitioner under Rule 30 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. An application was made by the petitioner in the execution application for stay of proceedings of the execution on the ground that his application for setting aside exparte decree was pending. By the impugned order the said application has been rejected. After having considered the submissions of the petitioner, I find no fault with the impugned order. The application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the exparte decree is still pending. If at all the petitioner is entitled to stay of execution of the decree, he has to apply for stay in application for setting aside exparte decree. Unless stay is granted in application for setting aside exparte decree, the executing Court was justified in not granting stay. Unless there is a stay granted to the execution by the competent Court in appropriate proceedings, the execution has to proceed. Therefore, no case for interference is made out. However, it will be open for the petitioner to apply for stay in the pending application for setting aside the exparte decree. To enable the petitioner to do so, ad-interim relief granted by this Court can be continued for a reasonable time. Hence, I pass the following order: : O R D E R : (a) The petition is rejected. The rejection of the petition will not preclude the petitioner from applying for appropriate interim relief in the pending application for setting aside exparte decree. (b) To enable the petitioner to take steps, ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 17th October 2008 will continue to operate for a period of six weeks from today. (A.S.OKA,J)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1015 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 31: 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 Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's 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 34: 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 38: 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 41: 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 55: 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: Santosh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & anr. …Respondents Mr. Samir A. Vaidya, for the Petitioner. Mrs. A. S. Pai, PP for the State/Respondent no.1. CORAM: S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATED: 29th JULY, 2021 (Through V.C.) PC:- Heard Mr. Vaidya, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vaidya submits that after fling of this petition the petitioner has been served with an externment order. Mr. Vaidya seeks leave to amend the petition so as to challenge the externment order as well. Leave to amend. Necessary amendment be carried out within a period of one week and amended copy of the petition be served on the respondents. List on 17th August, 2021. [N. J. JAMADAR, J.] [S. S. SHINDE, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 17th August, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 24/08/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar ...Petitioner vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents Mr. Deep Samant i/b. Mr. Samir Vaidya, for the Petitioner Smt. A.S. Pai, PP for the Respondent-State. CORAM : S. S. SHINDE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 24, 2021 P.C.: . At the request of Mr. Samant holding for Mr. Samir Vaidya, learned counsel for the petitioner, list on 3rd September, 2021 through video conference. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (S. S. SHINDE, J.) VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2021.08.24 18:55:34 +0530

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.S. SHINDE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR, JJ DATE : 3rd September, 2021 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 06/09/2021 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2636 OF 2021 Rajshekhar Ambedkar. … Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. … Respondents. Mr.Samir Vaidya for the Petitioner. Ms.A.S.Pai, GP for Respondent No.1. CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 6 October 2021. P.C. : The learned counsel for the Petitioner has challenged the externment order dated 28 June 2021. At the outset, the learned Public Prosecutor raised an objection that the Petitioner has an alternate remedy of statutory appeal. The learned counsel for the Petitioner sought to contend that two externment orders back to back have been issued and there is serious violation of fundamental rights of the Petitioner of free movement. There is the sequetor of every externment order. A statutory remedy of appeal against the impugned order is provided. However, considering the arguments made by the Petitioner, in the facts of this case, we are inclined to accept the prayer of the Petitioner for early disposal of his appeal. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of by directing that if the Petitioner files an appeal within a period of three working days from today, the appeal will be decided by the Appellate Authority within a period of two weeks thereafter on is own merits. We make it clear that since we have disposed of the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy, we have not gone into the merits of the matter. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 15223 OF 2018 Tetra Park India Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The Union Of India And Ors. ....Respondent Mr Prakash Shah i/b Pds Legal For CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 4th June, 2018 P.C. : Mentioned at 11.00 a,m, Place the matter on board for urgent admission on 11/06/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6151 OF 2018 Tetra Park India Pvt. Ltd. ....Petitioner V/S The Union Of India And Ors. ....Respondent Mr Prakash Shah, i/b Pds Legal For Petitioner Mr Pradeep S.Jetly a/w D.P.Singh for Respdt. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 11th June, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 12/06/2018 at 3.00 p.m,. Mr Jetly has tendered affidavit in Court is kept in matter. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6151 OF 2018 Tetra Pak India Pvt. Ltd. } Petitioner versus The Union of India and Ors. } Respondents Mr. Prakash Shah i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep S. Jetly with Mr. D. P. Singh for respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM :- S. C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, JJ. DATE :- JUNE 12, 2018 P.C. :- After this writ petition was heard on the earlier occasion and even today, Mr. Jetly, on seeking instructions from the Joint Director General, Foreign Trade, who is also the deponent of the affidavit and present in court, states that the said Joint Director General will grant the petitioner the licences which are subject matter of the petition, namely, licence authorisation under the Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme (EPCGS) and the Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) and allow the petitioner to avail of the benefits of the schemes, that of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-2020. However, this is subject and without prejudice as well to the powers conferred in the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade/Directorate of Foreign Trade under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. We accept these statements made on instructions by Mr.Jetly as undertakings given to this court. In the light thereof, we are of the opinion that once licences would be granted in pursuance of the petitioner's applications, then, the orders of rejection of these applications made earlier do not survive. They stand quashed and set aside. Needless to clarify that once the above statements are made on behalf of the Union of India, Ministry of Commerce and the Director General and the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade, then, respondent no. 4-Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva shall not preclude or prevent the clearance of the consignments of the petitioner provided the petitioner can seek the benefit of the licences. The communication dated 14th May, 2018 from the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva Customs House Exhibit "II" to the petition to stand quashed and set aside. The writ petition is disposed of. (SMT. BHARATI H. DANGRE, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE,CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5852 OF 2007 Vardhman Industries Ltd...Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Prakash Shah for the Petitioners i/b.PDS Legal. Mr. R.V.Desai,Senior Counselwith Mrs.S.V.Bharucha, for the Respondents. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.R.SATHE,JJ. DATED: 16TH AUGUST, 2007 P.C.: . At the request of the learned Counsel for the respondent reply, if advised to be filed within one week. Petitioners to file rejoinder within one week thereafter. Place the matter on board on 30th August, 2007. (S.R.SATHE, J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.) MGN

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5852 OF 2007 Vardhman Industries Ltd. V/S. Union Of India And Ors. ...Petitioner ... Respondents Ms. Arya Anil i/b. Mr. Sriram Sridharan for the Petitioner. CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI & RAJESH .S. PATIL, JJ. DATED : 9 th JUNE, 2023 P.C.: Learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks leave to take discharge in this Petition. Stand over to $23^{rd}$ June, 2023. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.) (G.S. KULKARNI, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5852 OF 2007 …. Vardhman Industries Ltd. .. Petitioner v/s. Union of India And Ors. .. Respondents …. Mr. Sriram Sridharan, i/b. M/s. PDS Legal, for the Petitioner. CORAM: G.S. KULKARNI & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATE : 30th JUNE 2023 P.C:- Mr. Sridharan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, states that already steps are taken by him to obtain a discharge. Accordingly, as a last chance, stand over to 14th July 2023. Mr. Sridharan to inform the Petitioner of the present order. (JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (G.S. KULKARNI, J.) SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Digitally signed by SMITA JOHNSON GONSALVES Date: 2023.07.03 10:47:20 +0530

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5852 OF 2007 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None present. CORAM : H. M. BHOSALE REGISTRAR (JUDL-I) Date : 07/07/2023 M/s. PDS Legal, Advocate representing the Petitioner in the present Petition has sought discharge vide preacipe dated 23/06/2023. The Hon'ble Court (Coram : G. S. Kulkarni & Jitendra Jain, JJ) vide order dated 30/06/2023 is pleased to direct the learned Advocate for the Petitioner to inform the petitioner of the order dated 30/06/2023 and the petition is scheduled on 14th July 2023. Therefore, it would be just and proper to place the present petition before the Hon'ble Court on 14th July 2023. Sd/- Registrar (Judicial-I)

Order - Status 49: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5852 OF 2007 Vardhman Industries Ltd. ….Petitioner V/s. Union of India and Ors. .…Respondents ---- Mr. Sriram Sridharan i/b. M/s. PDS Legal for petitioner. None for respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. DATED : 14th JUNE 2024 P.C. : 1 Advocates for petitioner have been discharged pursuant to a chamber order dated 7th July 2023. Nobody else has entered appearance for petitioner. 2 Petition dismissed. (JITENDRA JAIN, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 14th March, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 25/04/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 25th April, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 04/08/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav Petitioner Vs. Subhash Namdev Shinde & Ors. Respondents Mr. P. M. Arjunwadkar for the Petitioner. CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 3rd JULY 2023. P. C. 1. Heard. The challenge in the petition is to the order dated 30/11/2022 rejecting the petitioner's application for sending the thumb impression to the handwriting expert. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is specific case of the petitioner that she was not present at the time of execution of agreement to sale and thumb impression appearing on the agreement to sale is not her thumb impression. He would further submit that the trial court erred in holding there is presumption of correctness under the provisions of the Registration Act 1908 regarding registered instrument. He would further submit that the handwriting expert's opinion would be relevant for adjudicating the dispute inasmuch as the specific case to that effect has been put forward by the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, to issue notice to respondent No.1-original plaintiff returnable after a period of three weeks. Hamdast permitted. In addition to court notice, the petitioner to serve respondent No.1 by private notice and file affidavit of service before the next date. 5. Stand over to 24/7/2023. SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 24th July, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 31/07/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors ....RESPONDENT GANESH YOGESH DESAI CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 31st July, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 07/09/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 7th September, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 17/10/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 17th October, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 07/12/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 4th December, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/01/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.3091 of 2023 Shri Savitri Shekuram Jadhav … Petitioner V/s. Shri Subhash Namdev Shinde & others … Respondents. Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar a/w. Mr. Raj S. Satam Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Amol Suryawanshi a/w. Mr. Ganesh Desai Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J DATE : 02 December 2024. P.C. : Mentioned out of turn by learned Advocate Shri Arjunwadkar for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff. The order which is challenged in this petition is dated 30 November 2021(Page-59) passed on the application of the defendant for sending the agreement in question for examination of hand-writing expert. The signature of the petitioner is in dispute. He wants the opinion of the expert. It is submitted on behalf of plaintiff-respondent that the plaintiff has filed affidavit and cross-examination of the defendant is over. This is disputed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date: 2024.12.07 11:42:45 +0530 Even it is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that he wants to examine few more witnesses. Even though the contention of the petitioner may be correct at this stage, he can certainly put up his theory during cross-examination. The question of examining the expert will come later on. Considering the other work load, it is difficult to hear this matter today or tomorrow. Stand over to 17 December 2024, First on Board. (S.M. MODAK, J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav … Petitioner vs. Subhash Namdev Shinde and Ors. … Respondents ***** Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar a/w. Mr. Dhananjay A. Utture :- Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Amol Suryawanshi a/w. Mr. Ganesh Desai :- Advocates for Respondent No.1. ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 17 th DECEMBER 2024 P. C. :- For the reasons recorded separately, which are under typing, I pass following operative order : OPERATIVE ORDER (i) The order dated 30th November 2021 passed by the Court of CJJD, Vita in Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2017 is set aside. (ii) The application filed by the defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav in that Suit thereby praying for examination of the Agreement to Sale through an expert is allowed. (iii) The defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav is at liberty to suggest the name of the expert and the trial Court, after hearing both the sides, fix the name of expert. The charges will be born by the defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav. (iv) The petitioner/ defendant No.5 is at liberty to produce documents having her admitted thumb impressions for the purpose of comparison. The trial Court to pass necessary directions. (v) The appointed expert is at liberty to go through the Agreement to Sale by visiting the Court after taking permission of the Court. (vi) The trial Court to pass necessary directions to the expert about examination. (vii) If there is an issue about the procedure and the findings by the expert, both the parties are at liberty to agitate their grievances before the trial Court and not before this Court. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Writ Petition is allowed. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ] Age - 64 years, Occu Household, ] R/o. Village Dahivadi, Tal. Tasgaon, ] District – Sangli. ]… Petitioner Versus 1. Subhash Namdev Shinde, Age – 54 years, Occu Agriculture, R/o. Village Lengare, ] ] ] Tal. Khanapur, Dist. Sangli ] ] 2. Dilip Sadashiv Shinde Age – 57 years, Occu Agriculture ] ] ] 3. Sitaram Sadashiv Shinde Age - 49 years, Occu Agriculture ] ] ] 4. Yesabai Sadashiv Shinde Age – 59 years, Occu Household and Agril. ] ] ] 5. Bhagirathi Prakash Yadav Age – 59 years, Occu Household and Agril. No2 to 5 R/o. Village Lingare, Tal. Khanapur Dist. Sangli. ] ] ] ]… Respondents ***** Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar a/w. Mr. Dhananjay A. Utture :- Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Amol Suryawanshi a/w. Mr. Ganesh Desai :- Advocates for Respondent No.1. ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 17 th DECEMBER 2024 ORAL ORDER :- Heard learned Advocate Mr.Arjunwadkar for petitioner/ defendant No.5 and learned Advocate Mr.Suryawanshi for respondent No.1/ plaintiff. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. The only issue arisen in this petition is whether " the present petitioner is having right to insist for examination of her alleged thump impression on the agreement for sale which is registered on 19 th April 2001" (page No.18). She has expressed her desire vide application dated 11 th November 2019 (page No.54) which was rejected by the trial Court as per the order dated 13 th November 2024. It is by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vita. The said order is challenged by the defendant No.5 by way of this Petition. Background facts There are two Suits filed by the parties against each other. The details are as follows :- (i) Regular Civil Suit No.329 of 2012 filed by the present petitioner against in all 6 defendants. Present respondent No.1 is defendant No.1 therein. Following are the reliefs sought :- (a) It be declared that the agreement for sale dated 19th April 2001 executed by the defendants No.2 to 6 (as vendors) in favour of defendant No.1 as a purchaser is not binding on the plaintiff. (b) There are ancillary reliefs. The material averments find place in paragraph No.4 of the plaint. The plaintiff - Savitri has averred that she has never executed an agreement for sale dated 19th April 2001. (ii) There is Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2012 filed by one Subhash/ respondent No.1 against in all six defendants. The present petitioner - Savitri is defendant No.5. The plaintiff has sought for specific performance of registered agreement for sale dated 19th April 2001 and for other ancillary reliefs. The trial Court has framed issues in both the Suits and the respective plaintiffs have started with their evidence also. So in a Suit filed by plaintiff - Savitri she is seeking declaration and whereas in a Suit filed by the plaintiff – Subhash, he is seeking specific performance. Both of them wants to refer the agreement for sale from a different perspective. The trial Court rejected the application for following reasons :- (a) The disputed agreement for sale was produced on record on dated 11th December 2012. The defendant No.5 was aware of existence of that instrument. (b) The plaintiff Subhash has filed his evidence affidavit on 18th January 2016 and he was also cross-examined by defendant No.5 – Savitri on 15th October 2019. (c) The defendant No.5 was having ample opportunities from the time of filing of Written Statement till filing of evidence affidavit by the plaintiff. However, she has not raised any objection for long time and only after cross-examination she has filed present application. (d) The defendant No.5 can prove her pleadings by other options. (e) Once the terms of agreement are reduced into writing, no other evidence can be adduced to disprove contents of the instrument. The only exception is provided in proviso 1 to 5 to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act). (f) The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the defendants have executed an agreement for sale. Submissions According to learned Advocate Mr. Arjunwadkar, the evidence of an expert is relevant as per Section 45 of the Evidence Act. He tried to 1 WP 3091 of 2023.doc submit that the provisions of proviso to Section 92 of the Evidence Act are not relevant. Even he tried to contend that burden to prove nonexecution by the defendant No.5 lies on the plaintiff – Subhash. Whereas learned advocate for respondent No.1 supported the order and submitted that the agreement for sale is a registered document. It has got more evidentiary value than an unregistered agreement for sale. According to Mr. Arjunwadkar, agreement for sale is not compulsorily registrable as per the Indian Registration Act 1908 (Registration Act). This Court feels the reasoning given by the trial Court are erroneous. This Court is inclined to set aside the said order for following reasons :- (i) The trial Court has overlooked the fact of filing of the Suit by the petitioner - Savitri challenging the agreement for sale and it is pending. She has denied execution of said agreement. (ii) At two places she has clarified her stand :- (a) by making necessary averments in her plaint (b) by making necessary averments in the Written Statement filed to the Suit filed by Subhash. (iii) As per procedure followed for trial of the Suit, the stage of recording of evidence comes at a later stage. First the pleadings are to be completed. (iv) The petitioner Savitri is aware about the burden which lies on her shoulder. She is not only the defendant but she is plaintiff also. The copies of the issues framed in both the Suits are not made available. But if we go by law of pleadings and the provisions of Evidence Act, the burden generally lies on a party who pleads a particular fact. In a Suit filed by the plaintiff – Savitri she has averred that she has not executed the agreement for sale. Naturally the burden will lie on her. Merely because the plaintiff – Subhash has also sought for specific performance of that agreement, it does not mean that the plaintiff – Savitri is relived from proving said fact because by asking the plaintiff – Subhash to discharge the burden through execution, she is not going to be benefited. She has to stand on her own foots. (v) Both the Suits are at the stage of recording of evidence. No doubt the application for examination was filed in a Suit in which she is a defendant. In fact in her Suit there is burden on her to prove non-execution. (vi) It is true as per the Evidence Act when there is a documentary evidence the original has to be produced. It is also principle of Evidence Act if a party wants to believe the Court about the document, there can be no evidence other than the document itself. It is also principle of Evidence Act that party cannot adduce oral evidence to prove contrary to contents of document. There are only certain exceptions. One of the exception is "when the party is disputing the execution of that document". So that is how the proviso (1) to Section 92 of Evidence Act comes into picture. The fact may be proved which will invalidate the document. In this case there is a challenge to execution of the document. For all above reasons the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application. It has to be allowed. Hence the following order is passed :- O R D E R (i) The order dated 30th November 2021 passed by the Court of CJJD, Vita in Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2017 is set aside. (ii) The application filed by the defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav in that Suit thereby praying for examination of the Agreement to Sale through an expert is allowed. (iii) The defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav is at liberty to suggest the name of the expert and the trial Court, after hearing both the sides, fix the name of expert. The charges will be born by the defendant No.5 – Savitri Jadhav. (iv) The petitioner/ defendant No.5 is at liberty to produce documents having her admitted thumb impressions for the purpose of comparison. The trial Court to pass necessary directions. (v) The appointed expert is at liberty to go through the Agreement to Sale by visiting the Court after taking permission of the Court. (vi) The trial Court to pass necessary directions to the expert about examination. (vii) If there is an issue about the procedure and the findings by the expert, both the parties are at liberty to agitate their grievances before the trial Court and not before this Court. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Writ Petition is allowed. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ] Age - 64 years, Occu Household, ] R/o. Village Dahivadi, Tal. Tasgaon, ] District – Sangli. ]… Petitioner Versus 1. Subhash Namdev Shinde, Age – 54 years, Occu Agriculture, R/o. Village Lengare, Tal. Khanapur, Dist. Sangli ] ] ] ] 2. Dilip Sadashiv Shinde Age – 57 years, Occu Agriculture ] ] ] 3. Sitaram Sadashiv Shinde Age - 49 years, Occu Agriculture ] ] ] ] 4. Yesabai Sadashiv Shinde Age – 59 years, Occu Household and Agril. ] ] ] 5. Bhagirathi Prakash Yadav Age – 59 years, Occu Household and Agril. No2 to 5 R/o. Village Lingare, Tal. Khanapur Dist. Sangli. ] ] ] ]… Respondents ***** Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar a/w. Mr. Dhananjay A. Utture :- Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Amol Suryawanshi a/w. Mr. Ganesh Desai :- Advocates for Respondent No.1. **** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : $17^{th}$ DECEMBER 2024 ORAL ORDER :- Heard learned Advocate Mr.Arjunwadkar for petitioner/ defendant No.5 and learned Advocate Mr.Suryawanshi for respondent No.1/ plaintiff. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. The only issue arisen in this petition is whether " the present petitioner is having right to insist for examination of her alleged thump impression on the agreement for sale which is registered on 19 th April 2001" (page No.18). She has expressed her desire vide application dated 11 th November 2019 (page No.54) which was rejected by the trial Court as per the order dated 13 th November 2024. It is by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vita. The said order is challenged by the defendant No.5 by way of this Petition. Background facts There are two Suits filed by the parties against each other. The details are as follows :- (i) Regular Civil Suit No.329 of 2012 filed by the present petitioner against in all 6 defendants. Present respondent No.1 is defendant No.1 therein. Following are the reliefs sought :- (a) It be declared that the agreement for sale dated 19th April 2001 executed by the defendants No.2 to 6 (as vendors) in favour of defendant No.1 as a purchaser is not binding on the plaintiff. (b) There are ancillary reliefs. The material averments find place in paragraph No.4 of the plaint. The plaintiff - Savitri has averred that she has never executed an agreement for sale dated 19th April 2001. (ii) There is Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2012 filed by one Subhash/ respondent No.1 against in all six defendants. The present petitioner - Savitri is defendant No.5. The plaintiff has sought for specific performance of registered agreement for sale dated 19th April 2001 and for other ancillary reliefs. The trial Court has framed issues in both the Suits and the respective plaintiffs have started with their evidence also. So in a Suit filed by plaintiff - Savitri she is seeking declaration and whereas in a Suit filed by the plaintiff – Subhash, he is seeking specific performance. Both of them wants to refer the agreement for sale from a different perspective. The trial Court rejected the application for following reasons :- (a) The disputed agreement for sale was produced on record on dated 11th December 2012. The defendant No.5 was aware of existence of that instrument. (b) The plaintiff Subhash has filed his evidence affidavit on 18th January 2016 and he was also cross-examined by defendant No.5 – Savitri on 15th October 2019. (c) The defendant No.5 was having ample opportunities from the time of filing of Written Statement till filing of evidence affidavit by the plaintiff. However, she has not raised any objection for long time and only after cross-examination she has filed present application. (d) The defendant No.5 can prove her pleadings by other options. (e) Once the terms of agreement are reduced into writing, no other evidence can be adduced to disprove contents of the instrument. The only exception is provided in proviso 1 to 5 to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act). (f) The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the defendants have executed an agreement for sale. Submissions 1 WP 3091 of 2023.doc According to learned Advocate Mr. Arjunwadkar, the evidence of an expert is relevant as per Section 45 of the Evidence Act. He tried to submit that the provisions of proviso to Section 92 of the Evidence Act are not relevant. Even he tried to contend that burden to prove nonexecution by the defendant No.5 lies on the plaintiff – Subhash. Whereas learned advocate for respondent No.1 supported the order and submitted that the agreement for sale is a registered document. It has got more evidentiary value than an unregistered agreement for sale. According to Mr. Arjunwadkar, agreement for sale is not compulsorily registrable as per the Indian Registration Act 1908 (Registration Act). This Court feels the reasoning given by the trial Court are erroneous. This Court is inclined to set aside the said order for following reasons :- (i) The trial Court has overlooked the fact of filing of the Suit by the petitioner - Savitri challenging the agreement for sale and it is pending. She has denied execution of said agreement. (ii) At two places she has clarified her stand :- (a) by making necessary averments in her plaint (b) by making necessary averments in the Written Statement filed to the Suit filed by Subhash. (iii) As per procedure followed for trial of the Suit, the stage of recording of evidence comes at a later stage. First the pleadings are to be completed. (iv) The petitioner Savitri is aware about the burden which lies on her shoulder. She is not only the defendant but she is plaintiff also. The copies of the issues framed in both the Suits are not made available. But if we go by law of pleadings and the provisions of Evidence Act, the burden generally lies on a party who pleads a particular fact. In a Suit filed by the plaintiff – Savitri she has averred that she has not executed the agreement for sale. Naturally the burden will lie on her. Merely because the plaintiff – Subhash has also sought for specific performance of that agreement, it does not mean that the plaintiff – Savitri is relived from proving said fact because by asking the plaintiff – Subhash to discharge the burden through execution, she is not going to be benefited. She has to stand on her own foots. (v) Both the Suits are at the stage of recording of evidence. No doubt the application for examination was filed in a Suit in which she is a defendant. In fact in her Suit there is burden on her to prove non-execution. (vi) It is true as per the Evidence Act when there is a documentary evidence the original has to be produced. It is also principle of Evidence Act if a party wants to believe the Court about the document, there can be no evidence other than the document itself. It is also principle of Evidence Act that party cannot adduce oral evidence to prove contrary to contents of document. There are only certain exceptions. One of the exception is "when the party is disputing the execution of that document". So that is how the proviso (1) to Section 92 of Evidence Act comes into picture. The fact may be proved which will invalidate the document. In this case there is a challenge to execution of the document. For all above reasons the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application. It has to be allowed. Hence the following order is passed :- O R D E R (i) The order dated 30th November 2021 passed by the Court of CJJD, Vita in Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2012 is set aside. (ii) The application filed by the defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav in that Suit thereby praying for examination of the Agreement to Sale through an expert is allowed. (iii) The defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav is at liberty to suggest the name of the expert and the trial Court, after hearing both the sides, fix the name of expert. The charges will be born by the defendant No.5 – Savitri Jadhav. (iv) The petitioner/ defendant No.5 is at liberty to produce documents having her admitted thumb impressions for the purpose of comparison. The trial Court to pass necessary directions. (v) The appointed expert is at liberty to go through the Agreement to Sale by visiting the Court after taking permission of the Court. (vi) The trial Court to pass necessary directions to the expert about examination. (vii) If there is an issue about the procedure and the findings by the expert, both the parties are at liberty to agitate their grievances before the trial Court and not before this Court. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Writ Petition is allowed. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 26: WP-3091-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ...Petitioner SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Versus Subhash Namdev Shinde and Ors. ...Respondents Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2025.03.12 10:38:23 +0530 ***** Mr.Dhananjay A. Utture a/w Mr.Raj S. Satam i/b. Mr.Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar – Advocates for Petitioner. Mr.Ganesh Y. Desai – Advocate for Respondents. ***** CORAM : S.M.MODAK, J. DATE : 11 th MARCH 2025 P.C. : Matter is taken on board by way of praecipe moved on behalf of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 17th December 2024. In clause No.(i) of the operative order, it is wrongly typed as "Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2017". The same be corrected as "Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2012". Modified order be uploaded accordingly. (S.M.MODAK, J.)

#VALUE!

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1292 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Pradeep Kumar M.S. ..Applicant/Petitioner Vs Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and ors. ..Respondents Mr. A.D. Shetty for the Applicant/Petitioner.. Y.S.Bhate i/b Anirudha Garge for Respondents No.5. CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & M. S. SONAK, JJ. DATE : JUNE 15, 2017. P.C. : . Not on board. In view of urgency, taken on production board. In Civil Application NO. 1292 of 2017 2] Heard learned counsel applicant as well as the respondent in an application seeking amendment. On due consideration, the application is allowed. 3] Necessary amendment to be carried out within one week. In Writ Petition No. 6289 of 2017 4] Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. Issue notice to the respondents. Steps to be taken within two weeks. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 waives notice. 5] Till the next date of hearing, there shall be interim order in terms of prayer clause (b) of the civil application, which reads thus: "b) That pending the hearing of this Application, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to stay the the effect, operation, implementation and execution of the letter no. T-2/CBR/PKMS/ RECOVERY dated 25.05.2017 issued by Smt. B.Renuka, Assistant Personnel Officer, Recovery Section, Department of Construction, Services & Estate Management, Department of Atomic Energy and Government of India which is at Exhibit "D",until further orders; copy from page 13 6] List on 11th July 2017. (M. S. SONAK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 9: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDLI) Date : 11 JULY 2017 One week time i.e. 18.07.2017 is granted to supply copies of petition. If copies are supplied within time, issue notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 returnable within six weeks i.e. 22.08.2017 from today. REGISTRAR (JUDLI) RJ I gpj / 11.07.2017

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Advocate Swapnil Kamble instructed by A.D. Shetty for Petitioner is present. Advocate Suyash Sule instructed by George A.A., Advocate for Respondent No. 5 is present. CORAM : R. M. JOSHI REGISTRAR (JUDL­I) Date : 22 AUGUST 2017 One week time i.e. 29.08.2017 is granted for supply of copies of petition. If copies are supplied within time, issue notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 returnable within six weeks i.e. 03.10.2017 from today. REGISTRAR (JUDLI) RJ I gpj / 22.08.2017

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Pradeep Kumar M.s. ....Petitioner V/S Central Industrial Security Force (cisf) And Ors. ....Respondent Ashok D. Shetty For Petitioner Garge Aniruddha Arun for R.no. 5 CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA & MANISH PITALE, JJ DATE : 30th October, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the respondent, Stand over to 06/11/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Pradeep Kumar M.s. ....Petitioner V/S Central Industrial Security Force (cisf) And Ors. ....Respondent Ashok D. Shetty For Petitioner Y.S. Bhate a/w Garge Aniruddha Arun Res.No. 5 & 6. S.b.Kalel, AGP for state. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA & MANISH PITALE, JJ DATE : 6th November, 2017 P.C. : Office to verify and place before appropriate bench. Stand Over to 13/11/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM :A.N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDLI) Date : 04 JANUARY 2018 Await service to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for five weeks i.e. 08.02.2018. S.O. to 09.02.2018. REGISTRAR (JUDLI) RJ I gpj / 04.01.2018

Order - Status 19: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None for Petitioner Niranjan Kulkarni i/b Garge Anirudha Arun for R.No. 5 is present. CORAM : AJIT N. MARE REGISTRAR (JUDLI) Date : 9th FEBRUARY 2018 Petitioner to take appropriate steps for effective service on R.No. 2. S.O. three weeks i.e. 05/03/2018 REGISTRAR (JUDLI) RJI/GCI/09.02.2018

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Pradeep Kumar M.s. ....PETITIONER V/S Central Industrial Security Force (cisf) And Ors. ...RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 15th April, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 19/08/2024 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 25: TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 6289 OF 2017 Pradeep Kumar M.S. … Petitioner. V/s. Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and Others … Respondents. Mr. Aditya R. Deolekar i/b. Mr.Ashok D. Shetty for the Petitioner. Mr.Y.S.Bhate with Mr.Aniruddha A. Garge for the Respondents. …... …... CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR, AND M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 19 August 2024. P.C. : The learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that instructions have been received to withdraw the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. (M.M. SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.6038 OF 2021 Limbaji Bhimrao Thore Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent None present for Petitioner. Mrs.M.H.Mhatre, APP, for State. CORAM : A.S.GADKARI AND PRAKASH D.NAIK, JJ. DATE : 16th January 2023 PC : Petitioner has been issued strict warning by Jail Authority for returning one day late to Jail, when he was released on emergency parole leave. Perusal of record indicates that Competent Authority has not committed any error while issuing strict warning to the Petitioner for his returning late to Jail Authority by one day. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (A.S.GADKARI, J.) MST

Order - Status 5: 1 WP-1008-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1008 OF 2011 Mrs. Kavarthapu Arunadevi Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents Mr. Ghanshyam Upadhyay,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. V.R.Bhosale, APP, for the respondent No.1 - State. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 25th April, 2011. P.C. Notice to the respondent No.2, returnable 8 weeks. Private service by Regd.Post A.D./Speed Post/Courier is permitted with condition that the petitioner shall file affidavit of service. Till the next date, there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). (J.H.BHATIA,J.) Mhi

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1008 OF 2011 Mrs.Kavarthapu Arunadevi Petitioner. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents. Mr.Gaurav Agarwal i/b Law Juris for the petitioner. Mr.S.R.Shinde APP for the State. Mr.Vivek Jalan i/b Mr.Ketan Chotani for respondent no.2. CORAM : P.D.KODE, J. DATED : 23RD JULY, 2012 P.C. In response to grievance made by Mr.Jalan, learned counsel for respondent no.2 that copy of the petition has not been furnished to said respondent, learned counsel for the petitioner states that copy of the petition has already been furnished/served upon respondent no.2, however, he will furnish additional copy of the petition during the course of day. Hence S.O. for one week. (P. D. KODE, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1008 OF 2011 Mrs. Kavarthapu Arunadevi. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ... Respondents. Mr. Pawan Kumar Mishra i/b. Law Juris for the Petitioner. Mr. S.A. Shaikh, APP for the State. Mr. Ketan Chotani for Respondent 2. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED : 30th JULY 2012. P.C. :- Affidavit in reply of Respondent No.2 tendered. Copy received by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. He seeks accommodation. Stand over to 27th August 2012. To be heard finally at admission stage. (K.U. CHANDIWAL,J.)

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1008 OF 2011 Kavarthapu Arunadevi. ..Petitioner Versus -The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents Mr.Ghanshyam Upadhyay a/w Mr.Gaurav Agrawal i/by Law Juris, for the Petitioner. Mr.A.R.Patil, APP, for the Respondent/State. Ms.Manjiri Parasnis i/by Mr.Ketan A. Chotani, for the Respondent No.2. ........... ........... CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 10th May, 2013. PC: 1 The Writ Petition is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed as such with liberty aforesaid. ( S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. )