All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8650 OF 2003 Union of India & Ors. ...... Petitioners. v/s Chandrabhan R. Shinde & Anr. ...... Respondents. Mr. Y.S. Bhate with Mr. N.R. Prajapati i/b Mr. K.B. Rao for the Petitioners. Mr. Saikumar Ramamurthy for respondent No.1. ----- CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & V.M. KANADE, JJ. DATE : 24th March, 2008. P.C.: By this Petition, the Petitioner - Union of India is challenging the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No.734 of 2001 whereby the application filed by respondent No.1 is allowed and the order dated 17/09/2001 which was passed by the Petitioner was quashed and set aside and it was held that the applicant/respondent No.1 was entitled to receive pension in view of revision of pension by the Vth Pay Commission. Brief facts in nutshell are as under:- The respondent No.1, initially, was working as Labour Officer in Western Railway with effect from 24/10/1952 to 20/09/1963. Thereafter, he worked as Labour Officer under the Chief Labour Officer and as Assistant Labour Officer from 1963 to 1979 and, thereafter, he joined the International Airport Authority which is a Public Sector Undertaking and came to be absorbed therein with effect from 02/04/1979. Some time in February, 1984 the respondent No.1 was sanctioned pro-rata pension of Rs 297/- per month by the Ministry of Labour with effect from 02/04/1979. Initially, the applicant opted to commute 1/3rd of his pension in February, 1984 i.e. Rs 99/- out of Rs 297 and received an amount of Rs, 14,671.80. On 24/03/1984, he again opted to commute balance 2/3rd of the monthly pension i.e. Rs 198/- and received Rs 29,343.60. Respondent No.1's services in Western Railway, however, were allowed to be counted for the purpose of pension and, consequently, pension was revised to Rs 498/- with effect from 02/04/1979 vide order dated 02/07/1985. Thereafter, in view of the IVth Pay Commission his pension was again revised with effect from 01/01/1986 to Rs 1138/- deducting Rs 297/- which he had commuted in 1984. After the Vth Pay Commission, the respondent No.1's pension was further directed to be revised vide order dated 29/07/1999 and it was revised to Rs 3,443/-. However the respondent No.1's pension was suddenly stopped by the order dated 04/10/2000 and, 2 therefore, he filed Original Application No.861 of 2000. The said Original Application was allowed by order dated 19/03/2001 and a direction was given to the petitioner to issue notice to the respondent No.1 and, thereafter, take a decision. Accordingly a fresh notice was issued to the respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 filed his representation and, thereafter, the impugned order was passed against the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner - Union of India submitted that the Tribunal had clearly erred in passing the impugned order. He submitted that the respondent No.1 having commuted his entire pension on 24/03/1984 was not entitled to get the revised pension. He invited our attention to Rule 6 of Central Civil Services (Commutation of Pension) Rules, 1981 and also Rule 10 of the said Rules. The submission made by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be accepted. It is apparent that what was commuted by the respondent No.1 was pension to the tune of Rs 297/- only and not the entire pension of Rs 498/-. The Tribunal has reproduced the application dated 24/03/1984 and on the basis of this application, the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the respondent No.1 never had any intention of commuting the revised pension of Rs 498/- per month. In our view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal. The 3 Tribunal, after having considered the relevant rules and the facts of the case, has recorded a finding in favour of respondent No.1. It is a well settled position in law that while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court is not entitled to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal of competent jurisdiction even if a wrong finding is given. In the present case, we are of the view that the finding recorded by the Tribunal has to be confirmed in view of the admitted position that the respondent No.1 had commuted total amount of Rs 297/- out of the revised pension of Rs 498/- per month and, as such, the respondent No.1 was entitled to the revision made by IVth Pay Commission and Vth Pay Commission on the said balance amount and the impugned order passed by the Petitioner - Union of India was, therefore, rightly set aside by the Tribunal. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Under the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5203 OF 2011 Solapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Saunstha Maryaditt ..Petitioner V/s. Malkari Banappa Whanmane & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Surel Shah for the Petitioner CORAM : R.M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 20TH AUGUST, 2011. P.C. :- 1 Heard Shri Surel Shah for the Petitioner. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable in two weeks. Apart from the Court notice private service through Courier / Email / Registered post A.D. is permitted. Parties are put to notice that the Petition may be heard and disposed of finally at the admission stage. The Learned AGP waives service on behalf of Respondent No.2-District Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies. (R.M.Savant, J.)

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL AND CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : K.K. TATED, J. DATE : JULY 3, 2013 P.C. On account of paucity of time rest of the matters on Daily Board are adjourned to dates fixed as per the CMIS (Court Management Information System) which read as under : Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 14 30/07/2013 44,46 22/07/2013 49 TO 52 23/07/2013 54 TO 56 24/07/2013 57, 58 29/07/2013 59, 60 30/07/2013 61 31/07/2013 62 TO 66 07/08/2013 67 TO 76 12/08/2013 77 TO 96 13/08/2013 If in any of the above matters, ad interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. If there is any extreme urgency, the parties can get the papers produced before this Court. ( K.K. TATED, J )

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5203 OF 2011 Solapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit ... Petitioner V/s. Malkari Banappa Whanmane & Ors. ... Respondents None for the Petitioner and Respondent. CORAM : K.K. TATED *, J. 7th August, 2013.* P.C. : Twice the matter is called out no one appeared on behalf of the Petitioner. Writ Petition is dismissed for default. (K.K. TATED, J.) katkam k

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent Shri.Amogh Singh i/by Anil D.yadav For Petitioner Shri A.R.Metkari, AGP for State. CORAM : A.A. SAYED, J DATE : 29th November, 2016 P.C. : To be placed on the Final Hearing Board in the week commencing from 05.12.2016. To be kept a/w W.P.Nos.7975/2006 and 5393/2006. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent None for Petitioner None for Respondent CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 16th June, 2017 P.C. : None for Petitioners/Respondent,matter to be placed in the week commencing from 10/07/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent Adv. Anil K.Singh i.b. ADV.Anil D.yadav For Petitioner Ms.kumud A. Bhatia For R.no.1 ( V.p. Filed) Government Pleader For R.no.3 For Respondent CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 13th July, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners, Stand over to 20/07/2017 as a last chance. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : RAJESH G. KETKAR, J DATE : 20th July, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 10/08/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent Adv. Anil Singh i.b. Adv.Anil D.yadav For Petitioner Ms.kumud A. Bhatia For R.no.1 ( V.p. Filed) Government Pleader For R.no.3 For Respondent CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J DATE : 10th August, 2017 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the petitioners, Stand over to 18/08/2017 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jayprakash Kalicharan ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors., ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7975 OF 2006 Shaileshkumar Radheshyam Dubey ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5393 OF 2006 Shivshyam Vijaynarayan Singh ....Petitioner V/S The President- Rashtrabhasha Mahavidyalaya And Ors. ....Respondent CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J DATE : 18th August, 2017 P.C. : Matter to be placed in the week commencing from 28/08/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 21: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2006 Jaiprakash Kalicharan … Petitioner V/s. The President-Rashtabhasha Mahavidyalaya & Ors. … Respondents ----- Mr.Amogh Singh i/b. Mr.Anil D.Yadav, for the Petitioner. Ms.Kumud A.Bhatia, for Respondent No.1. Mr.P. P. Pujari, AGP for the State. C0RAM : G. S. KULKARNI, J. DATE : 28 October, 2021 PC : Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent nos.1 have tendered the consent terms stating that the disputes and differences between the parties stand settled in terms of the consent terms. The consent terms are signed by the petitioner and by the President of respondent no.1 on behalf of respondent no.1. The signatures of the parties are identified their respective Advocates who have also initialed the consent terms. There is no dispute on the signatures as made on the consent terms. The consent terms are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. Writ Petition stands disposed of in terms of the consent terms. No costs. (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) Digitally PRASHANT VILAS RANE Date: 2021.11.01 20:02:01 +0530 PRASHANT VILAS RANE

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5664 OF 2010 Dhondiram Shankar Masal & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s Nana Narayan Masal & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. R.V. Bansode for the petitioners. Mr. Surel S. Shah for respondent no.1. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 9TH AUGUST 2010 P.C. : Heard. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the common order dated 28 April 2010 passed by the learned District Judge1, Pandharpur, rejecting the petitioners' applications at Exhibits 94, 101, 102 and 118. By that order, the application made by the respondent no.1 at Exhibit 106 was also rejected. Respondent no. 1, however, has not challenged the order rejecting his application at Exhibit 106. Respondent no.1 in the writ petition is the original plaintiff. The petitioners and respondent nos.2 to 7 are the original defendants. In a suit for partition filed by respondent no.1 a decree for partition and separate possession was passed. The petitioners filed an appeal in which a partial stay to the execution was granted by the appellate court. The appellate court directed that the execution of the decree upto the delivery of possession can proceed but only directed stay for delivery of possession till the disposal of the appeal. Thereafter the petitioners filed an execution proceeding and the decree appears to have been sent to the Collector for partition. It appears that thereafter the Tahsildar issued a notice for possession but actual possession was not delivered when it was brought to the notice of the Tahsildar that there was a stay for delivery of possession. Thereafter the present petitioners made various applications mentioned above. By the application at Exhibit 57, the petitioners prayed that the proceedings for contempt of court be initiated against the Tahsildar. By the application at Exhibit 94, the petitioners prayed that tamperings were made by the respondent no.1 in the proceedings of Regular Darkhast No. 9 of 2002 and, therefore, prosecution be launched under sections 466, 468, 120B and 34 of the I.P.C. The appellate court has held that there was no iota of evidence about the alleged tampering by the respondent no.1 No material was pointed out before me to show any tampering by the respondent no.1. Hence, that order requires no interference. By the application Exhibit 101, the petitioners prayed that notice be issued to Mr. Ajay Pawar, the Tahsildar. By the application Exhibit 118, the petitioners prayed that Tahsildar Mr. Pawar be joined as party to the appeal. By the common order, both the applications have been rejected. Application at Exhibit 102 was for expeditious hearing of the appeal. In the final order, the appeal is directed to be fixed for final hearing. Hence, there can be no grievance about it. The gravamen of the applications of the petitioners at Exhibits 101 and 118 appears to be that though a stay for delivery of possession was granted by the first appellate court, The Tahsildar issued the notice for possession and thereby committed the contempt. Admittedly, the lower appellate court had not stayed the total execution of the decree. It had granted permission to the parties to proceed with the execution of the decree for partition and it only put a condition that the possession shall not be delivered. The proceedings were then sent to the Collector for effecting the partition. It appears that papers were sent by the Collector to the Tahsildar for partition. It appears that the Tahsildar did not notice that there was stay for delivery of possession and issued only the notice for possession. However, he did not deliver the possession on the fact of stay being brought to his notice. Thus, no breach of the order of the stay passed by the appellate court was committed. Hence, the decision of the trial court refusing to take action against the Tahsildar and joining him as a party appears to be proper requiring no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It may be noted that the suit was iled in the year 1996 and the appeal was filed in the year 2002. Thus, for 14 long years the respondent no.1, who has obtained the decree for possession, has been kept out of possession of the property. The present writ petition appears to be nothing but an attempt to further delay the hearing of the appeal and thereby stall the delivery of possession. For these reasons, there is no merit in the writ petition which is hereby rejected summarily. The lower appellate court is directed to decide the appeal expeditiously and, in any event, within 6 months hereof. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6819 OF 2015 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Memorandam of appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Office Court's or Judge's orders Mr. R. P. Walvekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Vikas Mali, AGP for the Respondent – State. ….. ….. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND S.B. SHUKRE, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 21, 2015. P.C. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petition has become infructuous. The petition is disposed of as infructuous. (S. B. SHUKRE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 2: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO. 21884 OF 2018 Tarash Sunil Budhrani Through Guardina Sunil Santumal Budhrani ....Petitioner V/S The State Of Maharashtra Through Secretary Senior Secondary Dept. And Ors ....Respondent Mr Abhijeet Desai for petitioner. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & SMT. BHARATI HARISH DANGRE, JJ DATE : 2nd August, 2018 P.C. : Mentioned at 11.00 a.m. Place the matter on board for admission on 23/08/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9095 OF 2018 Tarash Sunil Budhari Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. Respondents Ms.Vrushali Maindad i/b. A.A.Desai for the Petitioner. Mr.Kiran G. i/b. Little and Company for Respondent No.2. CORAM : AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE : 13TH JUNE, 2019 P.C.: The learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioner on instructions seeks to withdraw the above Writ Petition on the ground that the same has become infructious. In view thereof, the above Writ Petition is disposed off as infructous. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, 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.)