Tag: Ordinary Civil Others

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1/2 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1485 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 13227 OF 2018 Mr. Abhijit Gorak Kanse & Ors. ...Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Mr.Santosh Bapurao Rathod & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Zishan Quazi for the Applicants. Adv. Mangal Bhandari a/w. Mr.Mangesh Madhav Deshmukh for the Petitioners. …… Mr. S.P. Thorat, AGP for the Respondent -State. Dr.Gunratan Sadavarte for Respondent No. 150. CORAM : A. A. SAYED & V.G.BISHT, JJ …... DATED : 13th JULY, 2021 (Through VC) P.C.: INTERIM APPLICATION The Interim Application is taken out for transposition of Petitioner Nos. 9, 11, 26, 28 and 29 as party Respondents. By consent, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Amendment to be carried out within a week. Amended copy of the Petition be served upon the Respondents. The Interim Application to stand disposed of. WRIT PETITION Learned AGP seeks time to file Affidavit in Reply. Affidavit in Reply to be filed within one week from today and copy thereof shall be served upon the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for the other Respondents. List this Petition on 27th July, 2021. (V.G.BISHT, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 1/2 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1485 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 13227 OF 2018 …. ... Mr. Abhijit Gorak Kanse & Ors. ...Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Mr.Santosh Bapurao Rathod & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Anil Sakhare a/w Mr.Zishan Quazi for the Applicants. Adv. Mangal Bhandari a/w. Mr.Mangesh Madhav Deshmukh for the Petitioners. Mr. S.P. Thorat, AGP for the Respondent -State. Mrs.Vaishali Jagdale for Respondents Nos.41,42,43. ... CORAM : A.A. SAYED & V. G. BISHT, JJ. DATED : 27 JULY 2021 (THROUGH V.C.) P.C.: Leaned AGP states that the draft copy of the Affidavit-in-Reply has been sent to the concerned Officer and the same shall be filed by Friday i.e. 30 July 2021 with a copy to the other side. Rejoinder,if any, before the next date. Stand over to 5 August 2021. In the meantime, the Respondent No.5-MPSC is directed to furnish email-ids of Respondent No.6 to Respondent No.159 to the Advocate for the Petitioner, on the Advocate for the Petitioner communicating this order to Respondent No.5-MPSC as also the names of the said Respondents. 2/2 (V. G. BISHT,J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 17th January, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 07/02/2020 . 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 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT for Petitioner for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 30th November, 2022 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 11: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors RESPONDENT Mr. Amit Shroff a/w Ashna Shah i/by HARISH SHROFF AND CO for Petitioner Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No.1 & 2 Mr. Karl K. Shroff i/by Mr. Kalpesh Nansi Adv. for R. No. in wp No.15545/22 & Petioner in WP 11053/2019 Mr. Sachin Punde, Adv. for R. No. 6 & 7 in CRA & Petitioner in WP CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 23rd January, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 06/02/2023 ( at 2.30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 20th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/04/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.439 OF 2022 [Parekh Vs. Shree Padmanabh] WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15545 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr. Amit Shroff, Advocate a/w. Ashna Shah i/b Harish Shroff & Co. for Applicant in CRA/439/2022. Mr. Sachin S. Punde, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/15545/2022. Mr. Karl K. Shroff, Advocate i/b. Kalpesh J. Nansi for the Petitioner in WP/11053/2019. Mr.V.V. Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. K.D. Shah for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all matters. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2023 P.C.: Due to paucity of time, both sides agree that the matters can be heard post-vacation. By way of interim arrangement, learned counsel of both sides agree that the affidavit-in-evidence can be filed in the suit, however, the cross-examinations may not be conducted till these matters are heard by this Court on the next occasion. Therefore, this arrangement shall continue till the next date of listing before this Court. Stand over to 25.7.2023. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ...Applicant. Versus Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Nirmal Madanlal Tater & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Padmanabh Builders & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioner. Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondent. Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Harish Shroff and Co. for the applicant in CRA & respondent No.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kishore D. Shah for the respondent No. 1 & 2 in CRA and respondent no.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for respondent No 3 & 5. in CRA & WP 15545/2022 & Petitioner in WP 11053/2019. Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 25, 2023. P. C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on production board. $Patil_{SR}$ 1 of 2 Application has been moved seeking extension of ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 25th April 2023. List the matter on 31st July 2023 . Interim arrangement recorded in the order dated 25th April 2023 to continue till the next date. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for the Petitioners. Mr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar i/b Mr. Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No. 1. Ms. Ashna Shah i/b Mr. Harish Shroff & Co. for Respondent No.4. —————— —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 31, 2023. P. C. : Heard. The challenge in the Petition is to the order dated 24th April 2019 allowing the Notice of Motion No. 3320 of 2015 preferred by the original Respondent No. 1 seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015. Heard Mr. Amit Shroff, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Dr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Ashna Shah, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4. Mr. Shroff, Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submit that the Petitioners are one of the unit holders of first floor of the property known as Parekh Market and would submit that in view of termination of the Power of Attorney by Respondent No. 2 on 7th February, 2000 the Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to continue with the proceeding. He would further submit that the termination was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 which was taken right up to Apex Court in an application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and has been held to be time barred. He has taken to this Court to the order 24th November, 2006 passed by the Single Judge of this Court holding that the counter claim which was filed on 9th August, 2004 will not be maintainable in terms of the provisions of the Limitation Act. He would further submit that the Power of Attorney was in respect of the tenants who were occupying part of the property admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. and has nothing to do with the Respondent No. 4 society in which the Petitioners are one of the Unit holders. He has invited the attention of this Court to the Power of Attorney dated 8th June, 1990 which is at page No. 204 of the Petition and would submit that the proceedings in question have been instituted on the basis of this Power of Attorney. He would submit that the power which was given under the Power of Attorney was to file against the occupants of the structures which forms part of the portion of land admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. He would further submit that the said Power of Attorney having been terminated which challenge has failed right up to Apex court, Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to act on behalf of Respondent No. 2. He would further contend that the agreement which was executed with the unit holders was on 6th February, 1987 which was prior to the execution of the Power of Attorney. He would further urge that the Trial Court while allowing the Notice of Motion has failed to take into consideration the orders of the Single Judge of this Court as well as the Apex Court which upheld that the counter claim filed was barred by limitation. He would urge that as the challenge to the termination of the Power of Attorney has failed, the Power of Attorney cannot be said to be subsisting. He would further assail the finding of the Trial Court on the ground that the Trial Court has erroneously recorded that the affidavits filed by Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, no ground has been taken that the Power of Attorney concerned only the tenants and not the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. He would further submit that the Trial Court has given specific findings in respect of the Power of Attorney being an irrevocable Power of Attorney was given for consideration coupled with interest. He would urge that by these findings, the challenge if any, to the Power of Attorney has been foreclosed by the Trial Court. Per contra, Dr. Virendra Tuljapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-Plaintiff submits that the Notice of Motion was taken out by the Respondent for setting aside the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. He would further contend that the entire issue which was for consideration before the Trial Court was the application of provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC and it is in that context, that the Trial Court has examined the Power of Attorney and has held that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 is not attracted in the present case. He would further submit that the order dated 15th July, 2015 was passed as the Trial Court had directed the original Plaintiff to appear in the Court. He would submit that the original Plaintiff, if required, will appear before the Court and in the present case, the only inquiry is the impugned order permitting recall of order of dismissal. He would further urge that in exercise to the power under Article 227, this Court may not go into the merits of an interlocutory order. Considered the submissions and perused the papers. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has made submissions as regards the validity of the Power of Attorneys which have been executed by the Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 1. Perusal of the impugned order dated 24th April, 2019 discloses that the application was moved seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015 keeping the matter for dismissal for non compliance of the order directing presence of the original Plaintiff by invoking the powers under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. The Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion seeking recall of the order contends that there was a development agreement entered into in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and the possession was handed over for valuable consideration on a partly developed property and building was constructed thereon and various tenements were sold. The contention advanced was that Respondent No. 1 was granted irrevocable Power of Attorney as well as other Power of Attorney as required for development of the said properties and as such, considering the provisions of section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest and hence, irrevocable. Apart from the prayer of seeking recall of the order an alternate prayer was sought that the Applicant be substituted in place of the Plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was not allowed and only the relief of recall of the order of dismissal was sought. It is in the context of the contentions taken up by the Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of assailing the order of dismissal that the Trial Court has gone into the issue as to whether the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest. After observing the provisions of section 2022 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Court has held that at this stage the Defendant No. 2 to 4 cannot challenge the validity of the power of Attorney which would otherwise be the matter in issue and can only be decided when both the parties will get an opportunity to lead evidence into that effect. The order of the Trial Court is clear in paragraph No. 10 that the issue which was being considered by the Trial Court was only the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal by invoking the provisions under Order 39 Rule 11 which according to the Trial Court was not applicable in the given circumstances. The Trial Court specifically observed that the documents place on record by the parties are subject matter of the evidence and therefore, for continuation of the suit on merits, the order dated 15th July, 2015 needs to be recalled and the suit needs to be proceeded on merits. In my view upon reading of the impugned order 24th April, 2019 it cannot be said that by the said order, the Trial Court has conclusively held that the Power of Attorneys which have been pressed into service by the Respondent No. 1 are irrevocable Power of Attorney given for consideration coupled with interest. On the contrary it appears that the Trial Court has held that the documents which are placed are the subject matter of evidence and only for the purpose of continuation of the suit on merits, at that stage, the order dated 15th July, 2015 was recalled. Considering that the impugned order only recalls the order of dismissal dated 15th July, 2015 no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition being devoid of merits stand dismissed. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 5: SALUNKE J V Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.01.13 17:42:56 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 4 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17167 OF 2022 Sunil Tukaram Jagtap } Petitioner Versus Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande } and Ors. } Respondents Ms. Radhali Kadam with Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. A. R. Gole for respondent no. 1. Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for respondent no. 2. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State. Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kiran Gandhi i/b. Little and Co. for respondent no. 4. Mr. Aditya A. Joshi i/b. Mr. Abhijeet A. Joshi for respondents 5 and 6 (MSETCL). CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE: JANUARY 13, 2023 P.C.: 1. The learned advocate for respondent no. 2 seeks time to file affidavit in reply to the interim application. The reply shall be filed within one week from today. 2. Place the matter on 1st February 2023. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 1

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17167 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020 Sunil Tukaram Jagtap ....Petitioner/Applicant V/S Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande & Ors. ....Respondents … Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. G.S. Godbole a/w Mr. A.R. Gole for Respondent No.1. Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for Respondent No.2-MSEB. Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate and Mr. Kiran Gavellkar i/b M/s. Little & Co. for Respondent No.4-MSEDCL. Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP a/w Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 7-State. … Mr. Abhijit Joshi for Respondent Nos.5 and 6-MSETCL. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 1st FEBRUARY 2023. P.C.: 1 We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant and the learned Advocates for the respective Respondents. 2 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has filed Interim Application for amendment in view of the subsequent development. He submits that the Petitioner had challenged the appointment of Respondent No.1 initially with Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Fresh selection process was conducted by Respondent No.4 in which Respondent No.1 is selected as Director (Operations). The same is also against the rules. The rules require that a person with impeccable past history can be considered. The Respondent No.1 does not fit into it. 3 The learned Advocate for the Respondent submits that the fresh appointment is by another employer, the cause of action of the Writ Petition now does not subsist. In view of that in a Writ Petition, for which the cause of action does subsist, amendment may not be allowed. 4 It is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that when the PIL was filed Petitioner was seeking writ of quo warranto qua appointment of Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Respondent No.4 conducted fresh selection process and has selected Respondent No.1 as Director (Operations). The same would be a completely fresh cause of action as the employer and the designation has changed. 5 In light of above, as the relief in the original Writ Petition itself has become infructuous, it would be improper to consider the present 2/3 Application for amendment. It is for the Petitioner to take appropriate steps by filing proceedings as may be maintainable. 6 In light of above, the PIL and Interim Application stands disposed of. The Petitioner may take proceedings as may be permissible under law. In that event all contentions of the Petitioner as well as respective Respondents are kept open. No costs. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2023.02.04 10:27:34 +0530

Order - Status 3: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3466 OF 2021 M/s Laxmi Agni Components & .... Petitioners Forging Private Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge …. Respondents & Ors. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Ajay Vazirani, Mr. Pratik Kothari and Mr. Avi Kshirsagar i/by Lexicon Law Partners for Petitioners. Mr. Zakir Shaikh for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 28TH JULY, 2021 P.C.: Heard. Issue notice to the Respondent for final disposal, returnable on 30th August, 2021 . Mr. Shaikh, waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Dusane 2/2 28 WP 3466.2021.doc 3 In addition to service of notice through Court, the Petitioners shall serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery or by e-mail/fax on the Respondent and shall file affidavit of service with tangible proof before the returnable date**.** Further proceedings shall remain stayed. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Pratik Kothari i/by Lexicon Law Partners for Petitioner. Mr. Zakir M. Shaikh for Respondent No. 1 to 4. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN W. SAMBRE J DATE : 30th August, 2021 P.C. : At the request of learned counsel for the Petitioner , stand over to 14/09/2021 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 LAXMI AGNI COMPONENTS AND FORGING ….PETITIONERS PRIVATE LTD AND ANR V/s. SOU PHULABAI PANDURANG LANDGE …..RESPONDENTS AND ORS Mr. Jesse Cornelious i/b Lexicon Law Partners for the Petitioners Mr. Zakir M. Shaikh Advocate for Respondent nos. 1 to 4 CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: APRIL 20, 2022. P.C.: Perused the praecipe tendered in this Court under the signature of Partners for Lexicon Law Partners therewith email dated 20/04/2022 singed by the Petitioner. As such, appearance of Lexicon Law Partners for Petitioners stands discharged. Since the Petitioner has not taken any steps to engage new lawyer to pursue the matter, Petition stands dismissed for want of prosecution. [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.] ISM

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 29th November, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 13/12/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2918 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G.S. PATEL & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE S. G. DIGE, JJ DATE : 9th January, 2023 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: WP.3466.2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2918 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd & Anr. PETITIONERS V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge & Ors. RESPONDENTS Mr. Pratik S. Kothari for Petitioner. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J DATE : 31st MARCH, 2023 P.C.: This matter is circulated at the instance of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. However, nobody appeared for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 today. Hence, stand over to 18/07/2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue till then. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components and Forging Private Ltd. And anr. ...Petitioners : V/s : Sou. Phulabai Pandurag Landge and Ors. …Respondents ALONGWITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge and Ors. ...Petitioners : V/s : Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare & Ors. …Respondents ---- Mr. Anand Pai i/by. Mr. Pratik Kothari, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP-3466-2021 and for the Respondent in Writ Petition No. 3051/2022. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 8 August 2023. P.C. : Mr. Pai, the learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3466/2021 would invite my attention to order dated October 10, 2019 passed by the Trial Court rejecting application for amendment of the plaint at Exhibit-69. I have also gone through the application at Exhibit-69 which clearly made a reference to the transactions effected by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel in favour of Laxmi Agni Components and Forging Pvt. Ltd and Mr. Abhayraj Kapoor (Petitioners). By way of application at Exhibit-69, the Plaintiffs sought to incorporate a prayer challenging not only the Development Agreement and Power of Attorney dated October 9, 2006 executed in favour of Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel but also 'further documents' executed by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel in favour of Petitioners. Prima-facie, therefore it appears that the Plaintiffs had sought to incorporate a prayer to challenge all the transactions executed by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel in favour of Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3466/2021 by way of application for amendment filed at Exhibit-69. The application at Exhibit-69 was rejected by the Trial Court by its order dated October 10, 2019. Later, the Plaintiffs filed another application for amendment at Exhibit-81, this time seeking to challenge sale-deeds dated December 8, 2006 and December 7, 2009 which are executed by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel in favour of Laxmi Agni Components and Forging Pvt. Ltd and Mr. Abhayraj Kapoor. The only distinction that I see in application at Exhibit-69 and the application at Exhibit-81 is that while the application at Exhibit-69 did not specify the exact dates and nature of transactions executed by Shri. Rajesh Krushnakumar Goel, the application at Exhibit-81 described the nature of transactions and dates of execution thereof. Thus, the purpose behind seeking amendments under applications at Exhibit-69 and Exhibit-81, prima-facie appears to be the same. The Trial Court has proceeded to allow the application at Exhibit-81 by order dated June 16, 2021 which is subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 3466/2021. The Plaintiffs have filed Writ Petition No. 3051/2022 challenging order dated October 10, 2019 rejecting application for amendment at Exhibit-69. Though the order was passed on October 10, 2019, Writ Petition No. 3051/2022 appears to have been filed in September, 2021. Mr. Pai, would submit that the only reason behind filing of Writ Petition No. 3051/2022 at such a belated stage is the realisation on the part of the Plaintiffs that the rejection of application at Exhibit-69 would come in the way of the Plaintiffs in defending Writ Petition No. 3466/2021. He further submits that challenging order rejecting application under Exhibit-69 after filing of Writ Petition No. 3466/2021 would clearly establish that both applications under Exhibits-69 and 81 were filed for introducing same amendments qua Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3466/2021. Today, none appears on behalf of the Original Plaintiffs in either of the petitions. However since the board was notified at 12 noon today, it would be inappropriate to proceed further with hearing of the petitions. Stand over to August 23, 2023. SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.08.09 10:17:24 +0530 8-WP-3466-2021 &10-WP-3051-2022.odt 8 August 2023. Neeta Sawant

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors RESPONDENT Mr. Zakir M. Shaikh for Respondent in WP/3466/2021 and For Petitioner in WP/3051/2022. 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 26/09/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 26th September, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 12/10/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 12th October, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 06/12/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 6th December, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 20/02/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Zakir M Shaikh for Petitioner in WP/3051/22 & Respondent No.1 to 4 in WP/3466/21 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 22nd July, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 13/08/2024 ( at 2.30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 29: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components And Forging Private Ltd And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Sou Phulabai Pandurang Landge And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Pratik Kothari for Petitioner in WP/3466/21 & Respondent NO. 9 & 10 in WP/3051/22 Mr. Zakhir M. Shaikh for Petitioner in WP/3051/22 & Respondent in WP/3466/21 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 13th August, 2024 P.C. : S. O. to 14/08/2024 ( F. O. B.). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 32: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3051 OF 2022 Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge and Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Smt. Aruna Bhausaheb Botare and Ors. .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 3466 OF 2021 Laxmi Agni Components and Forging Private Ltd. and Anr. .. Petitioners Versus Sou. Phulabai Pandurang Landge and Ors. .. Respondents .................… Mr. Zakir M. Shaikh, Advocate for Petitioners in WP No.3051 of 2022 and Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in WP No.3466 of 2021. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w. Mr. Pratik Kothari, Advocates for Petitioners in WP No.3466 of 2021 and Respondent Nos.9 and 10 in WP No.3051 of 2022. ................... CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J. DATE : AUGUST 14, 2024. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Shaikh, learned Advocate for Petitioners in Writ 23.wp.3051.22+.doc Petition No.3051 of 2022 and Respondent Nos.1 to 4 in Writ Petition No.3466 of 2021 and Mr. Khandeparkar, learned Advocate for Petitioners in Writ Petition No.3466 of 2021 and Respondent Nos.9 and 10 in Writ Petition No.3051 of 2022. 2. Today, learned Advocates have filed Minutes of Consent Order dated 14.08.2024 which are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Parties have reconciled their disputes and differences and filed Minutes of Consent Order. The said Minutes are signed by the Advocates for Petitioners and Respondents whose signatures are appended at page No.4 of the Minutes of Consent Order on instructions received by them. 3. Minutes of Consent Order are running into 4 pages. For the sake of reference and convenience, the same are scanned and reproduced below for benefit of the parties:- Servin S " X" mandon 18 with IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC WRIT PETITION, 3466 OF TURE AT BOMBAY CTION 2021 LAXMI AGNI COMPONENTS AND FORGING PRIVATE LTD. & A VS SOU. PHULABAI PANDURANG LANGDE & Ors ) Anr ) Petitioners ) ) Respondents AND IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICAT CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDIC WRIT PETITION. 3051 OF 2 TURE AT BOMBAY CTION 2022 SOU. PHULABAI PANDURANG LANGDE & Ors VS ) ) Petitioners ARUNA BHAUSAHEB & ORS. ) Respondents MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDER The Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3466 of 2021 who is also the Respondent No. 9 to 10 in Writ Petition No. 3051 of 2022 and Original Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 in Regular Civil Suit No. 1931 of 2015 ( "said Suit" ) AND the Respondent No. 1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 3466 of 2021 who are also the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 3051 of 2022 and Original Plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 1931 of 2015 hereby agree that both writ petitions and disputes concerning between them in Civil Suit No. 1931 of 2015 filed in the Hon'ble Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune can be worked out on the following terms:- 2 2 The Original Plaintiff and Petitioners in Writ Petition No. 3051 of 2022 and Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in Writ Petition No. 3466 of 2021, agree that they shall now proceed and seek reliefs against the Original Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 in Regular Civil Suit No. Civil Suit No. 1931 of 2015 filed in the Hon'ble Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pune. Having regards to the aforesaid the Original Plaintiffs withdraw the said "Exhibit 69" and "Exhibit 81" filed in the said Suit and as such, the impugned Orders dated 10 th October, 2019 (subject matter of challenge in WP No. 3051 of 2022) and Order dated 16 th June, 2021 (subject matter of challenge in WP No. 3466 of 2021) are set aside by consent. It is agreed that as no substantive reliefs are being sought by the Original Plaintiffs against the original Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 and the Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 shall only be continued as formal parties to the suit for the purpose of execution of decree, if any that may be passed in the said Suit. It is clarified that the claim of the Original Plaintiffs against the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 will remain so far as it relates to the other suit properties except those purchased by original Defendant Nos. 9 and 10 vide; 3 a. Agreement / Sale Deed dated 8 th December, 2006 bearing registration serial no. 8147/2006; b. Agreement / Sale Deed dated 8 th December, 2006 bearing registration serial no. 8148/2006; c. Agreement / Sale Deed dated Ph February, 2009 bearing registration serial no. 6333/2009. The original Plaintiff shall be at liberty to claim allocation and adjustment in respect of their shares against Original Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 only and not against Defendant Nos. 9 and 10. It is further clarified that the Original Plaintiff shall not be entitled to claim in the said suit or even otherwise the properties that are purchased by Defendant No. 9 to 10 vide the aforesaid three sale deeds / documents and the area of the properties described in the said 3 Sale Deeds / documents shall be reduced from the share of Original Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 from the properties that are subject matter of the suit i.e properties described at 1(a) to 1 (d) without in any manner affecting the rights of Defendant Nos. 9 to 10. In terms of the above, the original Plaintiff has expressly and unconditionally given up their challenge to the aforesaid three agreements and sale deed executed in favour of Defendant Nos. 9 & 10. 4. Rights and obligations as stated in the above Minutes of Consent Order dated 14.08.2024 are taken as undertaking given to this Court. Parties shall abide by the same. 5. Order in terms of Minutes of Consent Order dated 14.08.2024. 6. In view of the above, both Writ Petitions are disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay

Order - Status 5: 25.7566.22-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7566 OF 2022 Shri Rahul Baburao Navsagare ….. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Sandeep Dere for the Petitioner Mr.P.P.Kakade, G.P. a/w Mr.S.B.Kalel, A.G.P. for the State CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATED : JUNE 30, 2022 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned G.P. submits that the authority has now taken up the documents and would pass the orders on it. It appears that subsequently, directions have been issued by respondent no.3 for the acceptance of the documents and if the documents confirm to the provision of the the Registration Act, may register it. Naturally, the respondents would pass orders with regard to the registration of the documents or otherwise, on its own merits. TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA Date: 2022.07.04 11:15:13 +0530 25.7566.22-wp.docx Writ Petitions is disposed of. (S. M. MODAK,J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 4: Pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 30 OF 2021 Sharad Ragho Raul .. Petitioner Vs. Director of Civil Defence, Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2859 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 30 OF 2021 The State of Maharashtra Applicant/Org. Respt. No.3 In the matter between: - Sharad Ragho Raul Vs. Petitioner Director of Civil Defence, Maharashtra & Ors. Respondents Mr. Rakesh R. Bhatkar for petitioner. Mr. B. V. Samant, AGP for respondent nos.1, 3, 4, 5/State & for applicant in IA/2859/2022. C0RAM: DIPANKAR DATTA, CJ & V. G. BISHT, J. DATE: MAY 2, 2022 PC : 1. We are informed by Mr. Samant, learned AGP appearing for the State, that an item in respect of the matter under consideration is expected to be placed before the Cabinet shortly for decision. 2. In such view of the matter, we defer hearing of the PIL petition till 6th June 2022 . The decision taken by the appropriate department of the Government after deliberations by the Cabinet shall be placed before us on that date. 3. In view of the aforesaid order, nothing survives for decision in Interim Application No. 2859 of 2022. The same stands disposed of. (V. G. BISHT, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE) PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2022.05.04 11:53:19 +0530

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 142 OF 1998 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.145 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10845 OF 1998 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 142 OF 1998 Baban Kisan Gawade And Ors. … Appellants Versus Kashinath Sayaji Gawade And Anr. … Respondents ..... ….. None for the Appellants. Mr. Sushant Prabhune, for the Respondents. CORAM : PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J. DATED : 5th JULY, 2024. P.C. The matter was kept back at the request of learned Counsel for the appellant, however, none present. 2 Kept back till 2:30 p.m. At 2:30 p.m. 3 Despite keeping back the matter twice, none present. 4 List under the caption "For Dismissal" on 12th July, 2024. [PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 142 OF 1998 Shri Baban Kisan Gawade And Others. ....APPELLANT V/S Shri Kashinath Sayaji Gawade And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 145 OF 2018 In Second Appeal 142 OF 1998 Shri Baban Kisan Gawade And Others. ....APPLICANT V/S Shri Kashinath Sayaji Gawade And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 144 OF 2018 In Second Appeal 142 OF 1998 Shri Baban Kisan Gawade And Others. ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Kashinath Sayaji Gawade(d/h) 1a) Prakash Kashinath Gawade And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10845 OF 1998 In Second Appeal 142 OF 1998 Shri Baban Kisan Gawade And Ors. APPLICANT V/S Shri Kashinath S.gawade And Anr. RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN J DATE : 12th July, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 26/07/2024. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 142 OF 1998 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.145 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.144 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10845 OF 1998 Shri Baban Kisan Gawade And Others. .. Appellants v/s. Shri Kashinath Sayaji Gawade And Anr. .. Respondents Mr. Amol Ghuge i/b. Mr. S.V.Pitre for the Appellants. Ms. Mamta Pandey i/b. Mr. Sushant Prabhune for the Respondents. CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J. DATE : 6th SEPTEMBER, 2024. P.C. : . Mr. Ghuge learned Advocate i/b. Advocate Mr. Pitre for the Appellants seeks time as the Advocate on record is unwell and states that, two days back a leave note is filed to that effect. In view of the said statement, stand over to 20th September 2024 . JYOTI RAJESH MANE 19:01:30 +0530 MANE If none appears for Appellants on the next date, the Appeal shall stand dismissed, without further reference to the Court. Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJESH Date: 2024.09.09 (SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 142 OF 1998 Shri Baban Kisan Gawade And Others. ....APPELLANT V/S Shri Kashinath Sayaji Gawade And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 145 OF 2018 In Second Appeal 142 OF 1998 Shri Baban Kisan Gawade And Others. ....APPLICANT V/S Shri Kashinath Sayaji Gawade And Anr. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN SA NO. 144 OF 2018 In Second Appeal 142 OF 1998 Shri Baban Kisan Gawade And Others. ....APPLICANT V/S Shri. Kashinath Sayaji Gawade(d/h) 1a) Prakash Kashinath Gawade And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10845 OF 1998 In Second Appeal 142 OF 1998 Shri Baban Kisan Gawade And Ors. ....APPLICANT V/S Shri Kashinath S.gawade And Anr. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GAURI GODSE J DATE : 29th November, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time.Stand Over to 03/03/2025 If any ad-interim / interim relief is operating till today, the same shall continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/ interim relief is granted not for a limited period, the same shall remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: 8.142.98 sa.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 142 OF 1998 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2018 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2018 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10845 OF 1998 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 142 OF 1998 Shri Baban Kisan Gawade and Ors .....Appellants Vs. Shri Kashinath Sayaji Gawade and anr .....Respondents Mr. S. V. Pitre for the appellants Mr. Sushant Prabhune for the respondents CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 6 th JANUARY 2025 ORDER: Copy of the rejoinder affidavit on behalf of the appellants is taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellants seeks time to file an additional affidavit explaining the statement made by the appellants in paragraph 4 of the application. Iresh IRESH MASHAL Digitally signed by IRESH MASHAL Date: 2025.01.09 09:53:13 +0530 Stand over to 29 th January 2025. To be listed under the caption for 'Directions'. [GAURI GODSE, J.]

Order - Status 15: MJ Jadhav MANGALTAI JAYWANT Digitally JADHAV 14:11:59 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 142 OF 1998 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 10845 OF 1998 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 142 OF 1998 Baban Kisan Gawade and Ors. … Appellants vs. Kashinath Sayaji Gawade and Anr. … Respondents Mr. Shirish Pitre a/w Amol Ghuge for the Appellants. Mr. Sushant Prabhune for the Respondents. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 29th JANUARY 2025 ORDER: CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 145 OF 2018 : This application is for bringing on record names of heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent no.2. There is a delay of around 10 years in filing the application. The applicants had contended in the application that they were unaware about the death of respondent no.2. The said statement was objected by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent no.2 on the ground that the appellants had filed proceedings before the learned Tahsildar by adding the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent no.2. Hence, condonation of delay was objected on the ground that false statement was made in the application. In response to the said objection, learned counsel for the appellants has tendered an affidavit in rejoinder and an additional affidavit. By way of the said affidavits, appellants tendered unconditional apology for making an incorrect statement and not intimating their advocate regarding the death of respondent no.2. The affidavit further states that the appellants are ready to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the heirs and legal representatives of respondent no.2. The affidavit in rejoinder and the additional affidavit are taken on record. In view of the explanation in the affidavits, the unconditional apology in the affidavits is accepted. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, delay is condoned and the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), (c) and (d), subject to the appellants making payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent no.2 within two weeks from today. The amount of cost for the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent no.2 be handed over to the learned advocate for respondent nos.2A to 2C. 2 of 4 Amendment to be carried out within four weeks from today. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 144 OF 2018 : This application is for bringing on record names of heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1. There is a delay of around 12 years in filing the application. The applicants had contended in the application that they were unaware about the death of respondent no.1. The said statement was objected by the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1 on the ground that the appellants had filed proceedings before the learned Tahsildar by adding the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1. Hence, condonation of delay was objected on the ground that false statement was made in the application. In response to the said objection, learned counsel for the appellants has tendered an affidavit in rejoinder and an additional affidavit. By way of the said affidavits, appellants tendered unconditional apology for making an incorrect statement and not intimating their advocate the regarding the of respondent no.1. The affidavit further states that the appellants are ready to pay cost of Rs.15,000/- to the heirs and legal representatives of respondent no.1. The affidavit in rejoinder and the additional affidavit are taken 31-SA-142-1998.doc on record. In view of the explanation in the affidavits, the unconditional apology in the affidavits is accepted. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, delay is condoned and the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (b), (c) and (d), subject to the appellants making payment of cost of Rs.15,000/- to the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1 within two weeks from today. The amount of cost for the heirs and legal representatives of deceased respondent no.1 be handed over to the learned advocate for respondent nos.1A to 1C. Amendment to be carried out within four weeks from today. SECOND APPEAL NO. 142 OF 1998 : Learned counsel for the appellants submits that he would file a private paper book within four weeks with an advance copy to the learned advocate for the respondents. Office remark indicates that record and proceedings is received. After the paper book is filed, office is directed to add the second appeal to weekly final hearing board.

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 26th August, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/10/2022 . 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 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 3rd October, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 17/11/2022 . 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 APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 17th November, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 24/11/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada …..Applicant Vs. MULEY SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO Digitally signed by MULEY SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO Date: 2022.11.28 10:32:04 +0530 The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. …..Respondents Mr. Sharique Nachan a/w Mr. Azeem Shaikh & Tanzila Kazi i/by Judicare Law Associates for Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. Tejas Dande for Respondent No.1. Ms. Sayli Patil i/by Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for Respondnt No.2. Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ. DATE : 24 th NOVEMBER, 2022. P.C.:- The learned AGP seeks time to take instructions from the Police authorities. Place the matter on 16th December, 2022. (ARIF. S. DOCTOR, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2022 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada .Applicant IN THE MATTER OF Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada .Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. .Respondents ----------- Mr.Sharique Nachan, Mr. Aman Khan, Mr. Wasim Karol i/b. Judicare Law Associates for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. Tejesh Dande for Respondent No.1-Corporation. Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni for Respondent No.2-CIDCO. Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ. DATE : 14 FEBRUARY 2023 P. C. . Time of one week is granted to the learned AGP to obtain instructions in terms of the order dated 24th November, 2022. The instructions shall be obtained prior to the next date of the proceedings. Stand over to 21st February, 2023. ( M. W. CHANDWANI, J. ) ( A. S. CHANDURKAR, J. )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada, Navi Mumbai .. Applicant-Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sharique Nachan, with Ms. Tanzila Kazi and Mr. Amaan Khan, i/by Judicare Law Associate, for the Applicant-Petitioner. Mr. Tejas Dande for Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation. Mr. R.D. Soni, with Mr. Sujay Gawade and Ms. Mudita Pawar, i/by Shree & Co., for the Intervenor. Dr. Birendra B. Saraf, Advocate General, with Mr. P.P. Kakade and Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 6-State. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2023. ORAL ORDER : { Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. } In this Interim Application, preferred by the original petitioner in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, the following prayers have been made :- (a). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to appoint a suitable officer as Nodal Officer or this Hon'ble Court itself be pleased to appoint any suitable officer from the departments of the respondents as a Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of the Masjid on the said Plot bearing No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai as per the approved plan in accordance with law. (b). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.6 to provide police protection for the construction of the Masjid at the said Plot bearing No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai." Writ Petition No.132 of 2021 was filed by the applicant raising a challenge to the communication dated 27th December 2018 issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, by which the applicant was informed that though on 17th November 2018, building permission had been granted by the Municipal Corporation, a likelihood of a law and order situation could arise if the construction was undertaken by the applicant. Hence, the Municipal Corporation temporarily stayed the building permission granted by it on 17th November 2018. In addition, the applicant prayed that the State of Maharashtra be directed to appoint a suitable officer as a Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of a Masjid as per the approved plan. The aforesaid writ petition was decided on 31st January 2022. The impugned communication dated 27th December 2018 came to be set aside by observing that if the Municipal Corporation apprehended any law and order situation, it could seek necessary assistance from the local police station in that regard. The writ petition was accordingly allowed. However, the intervention application filed by Akhil Sanpada Sanskrutik Pratisthan came to be dismissed. By urging that the applicant, which was the original petitioner, was seeking implementation of the order dated 31 st January 2022 passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this interim application has been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while allowing Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this Court had set aside the communication dated 27 th December 2018 issued by the Municipal Corporation. As a result, the temporary stay that was imposed on the building permission on 17 th November 2018 stood vacated. It was thus incumbent upon the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai to provide police protection for such construction. It was also the responsibility of the authorities and especially the State Government to appoint a Nodal Officer to facilitate construction of a Masjid on a Plot No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai as per the approved plan. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A. Ansari and Anr. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. 1 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. (Applicant) in the matter between Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2 , it was urged that notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition had been disposed of, this Court could consider entertaining the interim application in the disposed of writ petition as the applicant was seeking directions in the furtherance of the order passed in the writ petition. According to learned counsel, if the interim application was not 1 (2009) 2 SCC 164 2 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 12962 entertained, the applicant would be required to initiate fresh proceedings on account of inaction on the part of the authorities. The learned Advocate General for the non-applicant nos.3 to 6 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant no.1 joined issue and opposed the interim application on the ground that the relief sought in the interim application was not in furtherance of any directions issued in the writ petition, nor could it be said that the applicant was seeking implementation of the order passed therein. The issuance of the communication dated 14th April 2022 by the Police Authorities was justified for the reason that until certain factual aspects were verified by the said authority, further instructions could not be issued by that authority. The applicant had been called upon to submit relevant documents, on the basis of which further steps would be taken in the matter. It was thus urged that the interim application need not deserve consideration and the applicant could initiate appropriate proceedings for seeking the prayers made in the interim application. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor-Akhil Sanpada Sanskrutik Pratisthan submitted that the intervenors had filed Interim Application No.371 of 2022 seeking intervention in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, had been dismissed by the Court on 31st January 2022 while disposing of the writ petition. That order was challenged by the intervenor by filing proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the order dated 9th May 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rejection of the intervention application was wrong. It was noted that the intervenor had challenged the building permission granted by the Competent Authority on 17th November 2018 by filing an appeal under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (for short "Act of 1966"), which appeal was pending. A direction was issued that the proceedings pending before the State Government as well as before the Layout Committee would not be governed by the order passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021 on 31st January 2022. Despite that, the intervenor had not been impleaded in the present interim application and on that ground, the said application was liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having duly considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the interim application does not deserve consideration. At the outset, we may note that prayer clause (a) in the interim application is ad verbatim prayer clause (b) in the writ petition, which reads as under :- "(b). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate and suitable writ, direction and pass an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondent no.3 to appoint a suitable officer as Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of Masjid on the said Plot as per the approved plan, in accordance with law." Prayer clause (b) having been sought for in the writ petition and the same not having been granted while deciding the writ petition implies that the said prayer stands refused by this Court. A prayer which was made in the writ petition but not granted while disposing of the writ petition cannot be the subject matter of an interim application in the disposed of writ petition that is filed on the premise that the original petitioner seeks implementation of the directions issued in the writ petition. The remedy for seeking a prayer not granted in the writ petition would not be by way of an interim application in the disposed of writ petition. For that reason, prayer clause (a) in the interim application cannot be considered. Coming to prayer clause (b) in the interim application, which pertains to a direction to be issued to the Commissioner of Police to provide police protection for construction of the Masjid, it is seen that while disposing of Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this Court had observed that if the Municipal Corporation apprehends any law and order situation, it could write to the local police station, which could then provide necessary assistance so as to maintain the law and order. Accordingly, on 13th April 2022, the Assistant Director, Town Planning Department of the Municipal Corporation wrote to the Police Commissioner that the applicant had made an application to it in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021. Acting on that communication, the office of the Police Commissioner – the 6th respondent, on 14th April 2022, sought certain information from the Municipal Commissioner with a copy thereof to the applicant. This, according to the applicant, was not permissible and amounted to the Police Authorities sitting in appeal over the civil rights that had accrued in favour of the applicant pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition. In other words, the applicant is aggrieved by issuance of the communication dated 14th April 2022 and has indicated that the said authority ought not to have required furnishing of the details that are mentioned in the communication dated 14th April 2022. It is thus apparent that if the applicant is aggrieved by the communication dated 14th April 2022 on the premise that the said authority was not justified in seeking such information, it would be necessary for the applicant to challenge that communication. As long as that communication operates, prayer clause (b) seeking direction to be issued to the respondent no.6 to provide police protection cannot be considered in the interim application that has been filed in a disposed of writ petition. Perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A. Ansari and Anr. (Supra) indicates that a direction was issued by the High Court holding the petitioners therein entitled to be posted on a post in equivalent scale that was held by them with a further direction to pay them arrears of pay and allowances, if they were posted on a post of higher grade. The learned Single Judge issued the directions, as sought for, in a miscellaneous application in the disposed of writ petition. In appeal, the Division Bench held that the miscellaneous application was not maintainable since the writ petition had been disposed of. The order passed on that application was set aside by the Division Bench. In challenge to the order of the Division Bench, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when the proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ petition, it is not open to the Court to re-open the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provides fresh cause of action. However, at the same time, there is no prohibition on a party applying for clarification, if the order is not clear and the party against whom it has been made is trying to take advantage as the order is couched in ambiguous or equivocal words. Since it was found that the miscellaneous application was filed for pursuing and getting implemented the relief granted in the writ petition, which was for placement in the appropriate grade, it was held that the miscellaneous application was maintainable. This decision has been followed in Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. (Supra). As noted above, prayer clause (a) in the interim application cannot be granted since a similar prayer made in the writ petition was not granted when the writ petition was disposed of. As regards prayer clause (b), unless the communication dated 14th April 2022 issued by the 6th respondent is shown to have been erroneously issued, that relief cannot be granted. The prayers made in the interim application cannot be said to be the prayers made for clarification of the order or for implementing the relief granted in the writ petition. Such request for grant of police protection was under consideration of the 6th respondent and in that regard, factual information has been sought by it. If the petitioner is aggrieved by that communication, it would have to challenge the same, as entitlement to the same has not been decided in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021. Another pertinent aspect that requires mention is that the applicant was 21-IA-17568-2022.doc Dixit granted building permission on 17th November 2018 to undertake the construction of a Masjid. This building permission itself has been challenged by the intervenor by filing an appeal under Section 47 of the Act of 1966 before the State Government. It is stated that even today, the said proceedings are pending. Thus, unless the applicant is armed with building permission that has become final, the question of implementation of an order granting police protection with a view to implement the order granting building permission to construct Masjid cannot be considered in an interim application filed in a disposed of writ petition. Thus, for aforesaid reasons, the Interim Application stands rejected. The applicant is at liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law for seeking redressal of its grievance. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the prayers made in the interim application on merits and the observations herein are only with a view to decide maintainability of the interim application. [ M.W. CHANDWANI, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]

Order - Status 4: NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Digitally signed by NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Date: 2021.10.09 12:06:01 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Mr.S.G.Kudle for the Petitioner. Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for the State. Mr.Saurabh Oka for Respondent No. 8. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 8TH OCTOBER, 2021 P.C. : The Respondents shall file their respective Affidavits-in-Reply within a period of one week from today. Stand over to 18th October, 2021. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 6: 69.6555-21-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel ….. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr. S.G.Kudale for the petitioner Mr.Prashant Suryawansh i/b Mr.G.M.Savagave for the respondents Smt.A.A.Purav, A.G.P. for the State Mr.Saurabh Oak for the respondent no.1 CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 12, 2022 P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner was apprised of the fact that the order that is sought to be challenged is passed in Second Appeal. The proper procedure is to move the second appellate court if the petitioner feels that fraud is being played by the respondents. The order passed in Second Appeal i.e. Civil Court cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition. The Second Appeal is under the Civil Jurisdiction. The order is passed below Exhibit 1 in Regular TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2022.04.18 15:14:04 +0530 Darkhast also. If the petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the respondents then the proper procedure is to challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. The learned counsel for the petitioner may consider this aspect. Stand over to 07.06.2022. (VINAY JOSHI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Shikur Gafur Kudle for Petitioner Mr. N.K.Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. Prashant R. Suryawanshi i/b Mr. G.M.Savagave, Advocate for R.No.6 & 7 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ DATE : 7th June, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/06/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 28th June, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 13th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 27/03/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 6555 OF 2021 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Shankerabanu Afsar Patel ….Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2023.03.10 14:32:26 +0530 Mr. S.K. Kudle, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. P.r. Suryawanshi i/by Mr. G.M. Savagave for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. Ketan Dhavle i/by Mr. Saurabh Oka, Advocate for Respondent No.8 Mr. T.J. Pandian, Advocate for Respondent No.5 Mr. S.S. Aradhye, Advocate for Respondent No.6 CORAM:- R.D. DHANUKA & GAURI GODSE, JJ. DATE :- 6TH MARCH, 2023. P. C.: The Petitioner has impugned the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 690 of 2014 in this Writ Petition, on the ground that fraud is committed by some of the Respondents in obtaining the order in Second Appeal No. 690/2014. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 raises an issue regarding maintainability of this Writ Petition. Our attention is invited to the order dated 12th April, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. By the said order, dated 12th April, 2022, this Court has already observed; if the Petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the Respondents then the proper procedure is to be challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. This Court after making these observations, directed the learned counsel for the Petitioner to consider this aspect. Mr. Kudale, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that since the fraud is committed in obtaining the order in Second Appeal, this Court can set aside the order passed in Second Appeal, in Writ Petition. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner . Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the correctness of the order passed in Second Appeal for want of jurisdiction. If any appropriate proceedings are filed by the Petitioner, the same shall be decided on its own merits. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (GAURI GODSE, J.) ( R.D.DHANUKA, J. )