All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : K.K. TATED, J DATE : 30th August, 2016 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 04/01/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent None for Petitioner. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, AGP, for R.No.1. CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 4th January, 2017 P.C. : S.O. to 18th January 2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J DATE : 18th January, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned as per CMIS date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA, J DATE : 7th November, 2017 P.C. : Due to shortage of time, matter is adjourned to CMIS Date i.e. 28/11/2017, till then, interim relief, if any, to continue. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA, J DATE : 7th November, 2017 P.C. : Due to shortage of time, matter is adjourned to CMIS Date i.e. 28/11/2017, till then, interim relief, if any, to continue. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : M.S. SANKLECHA, J DATE : 28th November, 2017 P.C. : Due to shortage of time, matter is adjourned to CMIS Date i.e 18/01/2018, till then, interim relief if any, to continue. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Shri Vithal Namdeo Magar ....Petitioner V/S Shri N. B. Pawar, Authorised Enq.officer/asst.registrar, Co.op. Societies And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J DATE : 21st June, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned 23.07.2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8830 OF 2016 Vithal Namdeo Magar .. Petitioner Vs. Shri N. B. Pawar & Ors. .. Respondents None for the Petitioner. CORAM : V. L. ACHLIYA, J. DATE : 21st FEBRUARY, 2019. P. C. : None present for the Petitioner. Record reveals that the Petition is filed in the year 2016. The Petitioner has not appeared and prosecuted the Petition. The Petition is dismissed in default to appear and prosecute the Petition. [V. L. ACHLIYA, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. 1 Writ Petition No.5259 Of 2013. Niles Dinubhai Patel & Ors. .. Petitioners. Versus Jamnadas Khimji Jethwa & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.Vaibhav Mehta i/by V. Mehta & Associates, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Haresh Lulia, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 1 to 3. CORAM => S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE => 22nd JULY, 2013. P.C. :- The petitioners are assailing the order granting interim compensation @ Rs.15,000/- per month. (2) The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that the courts below have not considered all the relevant factors while arriving at the conclusion that the petitioners (original defendants) have to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as compensation at a time of granting stay to the decree of the trial court. (3) The learned counsel submits that there are various factors which are required to considered while passing an order about compensation. The learned counsel relied on following reported cases :- (i) Chandrakant Dhanu & Ors., Versus Sharmila Inder Kumar Kapur & Ors., reported in 2009(1) BOM.C.R. 698. (ii) Marjorie Passanah & Ors., Versus Mumtaz Iqbal Shaikh, reported in 2008(6) BOM.C.R. 72. (4) The learned counsel submits that the building is constructed in the year 1971. Lift facility is not available to the said building. Averment of the present petitioners that it will not possible for them to pay said amount, has not been considered. It is also not considered that the respondent is not required to spend for the building as the tenants have formed an Association and they are taking care of the management and expenses. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, leave & license agreement relied upon is not in respect of the similarly situated property. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the fact the adjacent premises has been taken up for redevelopment and the occupiers therein are relocated in another locality and for that Rs.40/- per sq.fts. is being paid by the developer. Said agreement did not have any nexus with the present matter and would be in respect of the altogether different property and in altogether different situation. (5) The learned counsel for the respondent supports the order. The respondent has produced on record leave and licence agreement, which is in respect of the property situated in the same locality. It shows that, rent was @ Rs.40/- per sq.fts. The petitioners have not produced on record any agreement showing that similar property is given at lesser rate. (6) No doubt, while considering an application for stay and imposing conditions about the payment of the amount more than the contractual one, the court is required to consider various facets of the matter and is not required to be guided only by other agreement. However, the court is required to have some material on record to arrive at just conclusion. Agreement produced on record is registered agreement. Even if I consider case of the petitioners that building is constructed in the year 1971 to which, lift facility is not available, so also tenants are expending the amount; still the courts have awarded the amount as per the leave & licence agreement produced on the record, which is of the year 2010. The petitioners claims to be in possession of 900 Sq.Fts. of the area where-as respondents contend that same is more. The court has directed payment @ Rs.15,000/- per month as compensation amount, which would be approximately @ Rs.15/- per sq.fts. Order is passed on 26th April, 2013. The property is situated in the Goregaon, Mumbai locality. (7) Considering the area occupied by the petitioners, the court has directed the payment @ Rs.15,000/- per month towards the compensation. Considering the above, discretion exercised by the court cannot be said to be unreasonable one. Discretion has been exercised in plausible manner. In the light of above, the impugned order does not suffer from an error on the face of record, warranting interference of this court. Therefore, in the circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. (8) The petitioners shall pay arrears of compensation as directed by the courts below by 31st December, 2013 and shall thereafter pay the amount regularly on or before 10th day of each calender month. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan Bachav And Ors ....Respondent Shri Shriram S. Kulkarni For Petitioner Mrs V S Nimbalkar, AGP R.no. 2 For Respondent CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 15th February, 2017 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn, stand over to 06/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal and others ..Petitioners Versus Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan Anandrao Bachav and others ..Respondents Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Mrs. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for the Respondent No.2. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 20th MARCH, 2017 P.C. 1 Heard Mr. S. S. Kulkarni, the Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners. 2 Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 17.04.2017. In addition to service of notice through Court, the advocate for the Petitioners shall serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery on the Respondents and shall file affidavit of service before the returnable date. 3 The Respondent No.1 is directed to maintain statusquo as on date in respect of the land in question. 4 Leave to amend so as to substitute Exh.H with the correct Exhibit. Amendment to be carried out within one week. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1442 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal & Ors. ….. Petitioners VERSUS Gargi Packaging Industries & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr.Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Kiran Varma, i/b. Mr.Kishore Gaikwad for the Respondent no. 1. Mr.J. A.Madane, A.G.P. for the State – Respondent nos. 2 to 4. CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J. DATE : 16th JANUARY, 2018 P.C . Learned A.G.P. states that his clients will file affidavit in reply and would also raise an objection to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that an alternate remedy exist against the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar. Affidavit in reply shall be filed within two weeks from today. It is made clear that no further extension would be granted. A copy of the affidavit in reply shall be served upon the petitioners' advocate simultaneously. Rejoinder if any, shall be filed within one week from the date of service of affidavit in reply and shall serve a copy thereof upon the respondents' advocates simultaneously. The petitioners are also directed to find out whether any alternate remedy exists against the order passed under the provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. S.O. to 13th February,2018 . [R.D. DHANUKA, J.] 1/1

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors CORAM : R.D. DHANUKA, J DATE : 13th February, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time Stand Over to 13/03/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors Swapnil Mhatre i/b Shriram S. Kulkarni For Petitioner S.H.Kankal AGP For R.no. 2 Kishore Gaikwad For R. No.1 For Respondent CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 23rd August, 2018 P.C. : Stand Over to 06/09/2018.Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors CORAM : SMT. REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 6th September, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned Stand Over to 27/09/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 22: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors Shriram S. Kulkarni For Petitioner P.J. Gavnane AGP For R.no. 2 Suhas Adhav i/b Kishore Gaikwad For R. No.1 CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 27th September, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the respondents no. 1 & 3, Stand over to 19/10/2018. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 19th October, 2018 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 19/11/2018 alongwith connected matters.Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. Stand over to 19/11/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Gargi Packaging Industries Through Shri. Rajan ....Respondent Bachav And Ors CORAM : S.S. SHINDE, J DATE : 18th April, 2019 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned for 24/06/2019. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 28: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal & Ors. …..Petitioners. Vs. Gargi Packaging Industries & Ors. …..Respondents. Mr. Pravartak Khatavkar I/by S.S. Kulkarni for the Petitioners. Mr. C.D. Mali AGP, for the Respondent No. 2State. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 24th JUNE, 2019. P.C.: Stand over to 15th July, 2019. 2 Adinterim relief, if any, to continue till then. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 30: Tandle IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1442 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7413 OF 2016 Shakuntala Vithal Bhujbal and Ors. ... Petitioners. Versus Gargi Packaging Industries and Ors. ... Respondents. . . . . . . Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for Petitioners. Mr. Suhas Adhav I/b Kishor Gaikwad for Respondent No.1. Mr. C. D. Mali, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. . . . . . . CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 15TH JULY, 2019 P. C. : By the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners had impugned Order dated 05.02.2016 passed by the Agricultural Land Tribunal/Tahsildar, Dhindori, i.e. respondent no. 2 herein, thereby rejecting the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 63(1A) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (For short "MTAL Act"). At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 raised a preliminary objection and submitted that, against the impugned order, there is substantive alternate remedy available with the petitioners either before the Collector under Section 74 or under Section 76 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal of the MTAL Act and without availing the said remedy, the petitioners have preferred present petition directly before this Court. Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions of the representative of the petitioners, who is personally present in the Court, submitted that, the petitioners will avail substantive alternate remedy available under the said Act. He submitted that, in view thereof, they may be granted leave to withdraw the present petition with liberty to adopt alternate remedy. Leave and liberty granted. Writ Petition is disposed off with aforesaid liberty. Adinterim relief granted by order dated 20th March 2017, to remain in force for three weeks from today. It is needless to mention that, this Court has not adjudicated upon the issue involved in the petition and the petition is disposed off on the basis of the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for respondent no.1. In view of the disposal of the main petition Civil Application No. 1442 of 2017 does not survive and is accordingly stands disposed off. (A. S. GADKARI, J.) 2/2

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 SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 6159 OF 2009 Deccan Education Society, Pune and Anr. ..Petitioners Vs. Shri.Ashutosh Nandkishore Ranade and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. V.D.Borwankar Adv. for Petitioners Mr. A.I.Khemani AGP for Respondent No.2 CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 25, 2009 .... P.C.: Notice to respondent no.1 returnable on 9th September, 2009. In addition to that, the learned advocate for the petitioner to serve respondent no.1 by private service and file affidavit of service. Learned AGP waives service of notice for respondent no.2. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO.6159 OF 2009 Deccan Education Society Fergusson CollegeMr. and Ors. ..Petitioners Vs. Shri.Ashutosh Nandkishore Ranade and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.V.D.Borwankar Adv. for Petitioners Mr.A.I.Khemani AGP for Respondent No.2. Mr.S.M.Joshi Adv. for Respondent No.3. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 09, 2009 P.C.: The learned advocate for the Petitioner states that he will file affidavit of service by 17.9.2009. Time to complete the inquiry, is extended upto 30.9.2009. S.O. 23.9.2009. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6159 OF 2009 .... Deccan Education Society & Anr. ...Petitioners V/s. Ashutosh Nandkishore Ranade & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.V.D.Borwankar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.M.Joshi, Advocate, for respondent no.1. CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 13th NOVEMBER, 2009. P.C. The employee has filed a cross petition bearing Writ Petition (Stamp) No. 20904 of 2009, which is not on board today. By consent, these two writ petitions to be kept together for admission. Stand over to 19th November 2009. (R.S.MOHITE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6025 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Order or Directions and Registrar's Orders ------------------------------------------------------------------- ¦ Court's or Judge's ¦ Orders ¦ ¦ Mr.Arshad Shaikh with Mr.R.M.Pethe for the petitioner. Mr.N.M. Ganaji for Respondent No.2. Mr.Farhan Dubash i/by Naik Naik Iyer & Co. for Respondent No.3. Mr.Vishal Kanade i/by M/s. V. Deshpande for Resp.No.4. CORAM: SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 21ST SEPT., 2007. P.C.: 1. Respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are represented by their respective advocates. 2. The advocate for the petitioner to take steps to serve respondent No.1 within four weeks from today. 3. S.O. for four weeks. $ldots ldots$

Order - Status 8: vss : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6025 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda¦ Court's or Judge's of Coram, appearances, Court's¦ Orders Order or Directions and ¦ Registrar's Orders ¦ ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.Arshad Shaikh with R.M. Pethe for the Petitioner Mr.Vishal Kanade for Respondent No.4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: OCTOBER 19, 2007 P.C.: . Mr.Pethe for the petitioner seeks leave to amend the cause title by substituting the address of Respondent No.1. Leave granted. Amendments to be carried out within a week from today. Issue fresh notice to Respondent NO.1 on the amended address returnable in four weeks.

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6025 OF 2007 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3063 OF 2007 ------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's Memoranda of Coram, orders appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders ------------------------------------------------------ Mr. R.M. Pethe for petitioner. Mr.N.M. Ganaji for respondent no.2. Mr. Farhan Dubash i/by Naik Naik Iyer and co. for respondent no.3. Mr. Vishal Kanade i/by M/s.V. Deshpande for respondent no.4. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE,J. 10/12/2007. P.C.: . Rule. . Respondent nos.2 to 4 waive service. . The learned Advocate for the petitioner is at liberty to serve the respondent no.1 by publishing a notice in an English daily published from Calcutta. The proof of such court within eight weeks. publication shall be placed before this . Rule be made returnable in the week commencing from 3rd March, 2008. . Civil Application No. 3063 of 2007 is disposed off accordingly. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)

Order - Status 14: ISM 1.wp.6025.07.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6025 OF 2007 Saifuddin Karachiwala ….PETITIONER V/s. The Indian Standard Metal Company Limited, & others …..RESPONDENTS Mr. R.M. Pethe, Advocate for the Petitioner. None for Respondent. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE: JUNE 17, 2022. P.C.: On instructions, a motion is made by the Counsel for the petitioner for withdrawal of the Petition. Petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. If the prayer for withdrawal of the amount is made, same be considered in accordance with law. [NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2010 Madhukar Narayan Sali .. Petitioner versus Arjundas Sattaramdas Banga & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Pankaj J. Das for the petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 4th February 2010. P.C: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. The learned counsel is not disputing that the clause (h-a) of clause (iv) of section 6 of the Bombay Court Fees Act, 1959 is applicable. He, however, pointed out that the two sale deeds which are under challenge relate to the same suit property. He submitted that assuming that market value of the suit property is Rs. 11,00,000/-, the petitioner is ready and willing to pay Court fees on the said amount. His submission is that under clause (h-a) Court fee is leviable on the value of the property and therefore, merely because there is a challenge to the two sale deeds, the petitioner is not liable to pay Court fees on the market value mentioned in both the sale deeds in respect of the same property. He invited my attention to paragraph 3 of the impugned order which requires the petitioner to pay Court fees on a sum of Rs.21,00,000/- which according to the petitioner is much more than the value of the property contemplated by clause (h-a). Issue notice to the respondents for final disposal at admission stage returnable on 5th March 2010. Hamdast allowed. Till the next date, the plaint shall not be rejected on the ground of non-compliance with the impugned order. Private service is also permitted. (A.S.OKA,J)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Pankaj J. Das for petitioner. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 5th March 2010 PC :- 1. Await service till 12th April 2010. If affidavit of service of private notice is not filed on or before 8th April 2010, the petition will stand dismissed for non prosecution without further reference to the Court. Ad-interim relief granted earlier is extended till next date. (A.S.OKA, J.) mst

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET WRIT PETITION NO.754 OF 2010 1 ............................................................. Office Notes,Office memorandum of Coram, appearances,Court's Court's or orders or directions Judge's orders & Registrar's orders. ............................................................. Mr.Pankaj Das for the petitioner None for the respondents CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 8,2010 P.C.: . Not on board. Taken on board. 1 Petition to come up on board on 12th April 2010 which is the scheduled date. 2 Till next date, the conditional order will not operate. JUDGE ssp

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 754 of 2010 Madhukar Narayan Sali ...Petitioner v/s. Arjundas Sattaramdas Banga & ors. ..Respondents Mr. Pankaj J. Das for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Chandnani for respondents 5-8. CORAM:- B.R. GAVAI, J DATED :- FEBRUARY 25, 2011. P.C. The Petitioner to take steps to serve the unserved Respondents 2 and 3 within a period of four weeks from today, failing which petition to stand dismissed for non-prosecution, without further reference to the Court. If steps are taken in time, place the matter on 25th March, 2011. (B.R. GAVAI, J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.217 OF 2006 Santosh Madhukar Chavan. ..Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Shashikant Samant for the Petitioner. Mr.P.S. Hingorani, APP. for the State. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE,J. DATED : 31/1/2006. P.C. Heard both sides. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. This petition impugns an order dated 7.1.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sindhudurg below Exh.131 and 148 in Sessions Case No.3/4/5 of 2005. The crux of the matter is that during the trial certain witnesses who had made certain statements of facts in their police statements were examined. When they entered into the witness box, in their examination in chief they did not depose about the said facts mentioned in the police statements. However, in their cross examination a version which was contrary to what they had stated in police statement relating to those facts was elicited by the defence. On eliciting such a contradictory version in their substantive evidence, a contradiction with their earlier police statement was sought to be brought on record. This has been disallowed by the trial court on the ground that a statement of fact which find place in the police statement recorded in the course of the investigation cannot be used to contradict the different version which had been elicited during the cross examination of the witness in the court. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the rules relating to use of police statements in evidence. In short, the said section provides that when any witness is called by the prosecution in an inquiry or trial and the statement of such witness has been reduced to writing in the police investigation, then any part of the statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the court by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act lays down the rules relating to cross examination as to previous statements made by a witness in writing. It provides that a witness may be cross examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduced into :2: writing, and relevant to matters in question without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but, if it is intended to contradict him by the writing, his attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him. Neither Section 162 nor Section 145 lay down any embargo to the effect that such a contradiction can only be brought on record in the examination in chief. It is well settled that the evidence of a witness consists of examination in chief, his cross examination as well as re-examination if any. In the absence of any embargo, it would be open to the defence to prove a contradiction, if any exists, between the police statement and the evidence which has been brought on record during the cross examination of the witness. The Trial Court in the present case appears to be of the view that the defence cannot be allowed to create a contradiction and then prove the same. There is no question of creation of contradiction. If within the parameters which define the scope of the cross examination, any statement is brought on record by the defence in the cross examination, then said statement is a part of the evidence and if their exists a previous statement of the witness which is contradictory then in my view, the contradiction can be put to the witness and brought on record. In the circumstances, in my view this is a case where rule will have to be made absolute. It has been observed in the impugned order that certain questions were improperly asked in the sense that they pertained to nature of the contents of the statement made to the police. It is made clear that the reasoning given hereinabove would not permit the defence to ask the witness directly about the contents of the statement said to have been made to the police officer. I am informed that the evidence of some of the witnesses in respect of whose evidence questions were disallowed, has been already completed. I am further informed that this application was moved principally because the defence may face similar difficulty in the recording of evidence yet to come. In view of the closing of the evidence of the said witnesses, it will be open to the defence to apply for recall of those witnessses and if any such application is made, the same may be dispose off on merits. Rule is made absolute accordingly and the the petition is disposed off. (R. S. MOHITE, J.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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