Tag: Ordinary Civil

Order - Status 7: pmw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION NO.91 OF 2017 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5312 OF 2016 Transparent Energy Systems Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. … Petitioners Vs. State Bank of India and Ors. … Respondents Mr. Prathamesh B. Bhargude for the Petitioners. Mr. Prakash Shinde for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.K. MENON, JJ. DATE : 20th JULY, 2017 [In Chamber at 2.35 pm] P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Even otherwise, there is no ground for review. Review Petition is rejected. (A.K. MENON, J) (A.S. OKA, J)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 624 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2003 Mr. Arvind Dagduram Chopda (since deceased through legal heirs) 1a. Smt. Kanchan Arvind Chopda & Ors. … Applicants. V/s. Kisan Yesu Kotwal and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan i/b. A.L. Gore for the Applicants. Mr. V.R. Kasale i/b. Ram & Co. for Respondents 1 to 7. CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 4 APRIL, 2016. P.C. : Not on board. Taken on production board by way of praecipe. Place the Civil Application on board on 15 April 2016. Office remark shows that the next CMIS date is 15 April 2016, however, the Application is still under objections. Registry to explain as to how the CMIS date is assigned before the office objections are removed. Office objections to be removed before the next date. (N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 7: Sequeira IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 624 OF 2016 in SECOND APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2003 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's order or Court's or Judge's Orders Directions and Registrar's Orders Mr.S.S.Patwardhan i/b Mr.A.L.Gore, for Applicants. Mr.V.R.Kasale i/b Ram & Co., for Respondents Nos.1 to 7. CORAM: N.M. JAMDAR, J. Friday, 15 April 2016. P.C.: The learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 7 has no objection for granting prayers made in the Application in view of the statement made by the Applicants in para 7 of the Application. The learned counsel for the Applicants states that he has served the other Respondents and seeks time to file affidavit of service. The remaining Respondents are represented through the Advocate, who are not present. Stand over to 4 May 2016. The Appellants will give one more notice to the Advocate for the Respondent Nos.8 to 13. (N.M.Jamdar, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 429 OF 2003 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 624 OF 2016 Arvind Dagduram Chopda (since deceased through legal heirs) 1A. Smt.Kanchan Arvind Chopda & ors. … Appellants/Applicants v/s Kisan Yesu Kotwal (since deceased) 1A. Bhimaji K. Kotwal & ors. … Respondents Mr.A.L. Gore for the appellants/applicants. Mr.V.R.Kasle i/by Ram & Co. for Resp. Nos.1 to 7. Mr.L.S. Gaikwad i/by M.R.Bhope for Resp. Nos.10 to 13. Coram: N.M. Jamdar, J. Dated: 4 May 2016 P.C.: Learned counsel for the Appellants states that he has received instructions to withdraw the appeal. 2 The appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with the civil application. ( N. M. JAMDAR, J. )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1478 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr. ....Applicant V/S Alankar Sahkari Griha ....Respondent CORAM : SMT. S.S. JADHAV, J DATE : 6th October, 2017 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned. Stand over to 28/11/2017. Ad-interim relief if any to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1478 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr. Applicant V/S Alankar Sahkari Griha Respondent Sandesh Shukla a/w Amit Singh and Santosh Sawant For Applicant Mihir Raut i/b Nitin Deshpande for Respondent (Orig. Petitioner) CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J DATE : 7th June, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the respondent, Stand over to 28/06/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1478 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr. ....Applicant V/S Alankar Sahkari Griha ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 2589 OF 2015 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Alankar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, Through Chairman, Shri. S. K. Khadilkar ....Applicant V/S Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr ....Respondent Sandesh Shukla a/w Amit Singh i/b.Santosh Sawant For Applicant Nitin P. Deshpande for Respondent CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J DATE : 28th June, 2018 P.C. : At the request of learned advocate for the respondent , Stand over to 05/07/2018 at 3.30 p.m. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1478 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr. ....Applicant V/S Alankar Sahkari Griha ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 2589 OF 2015 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Alankar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, Through Chairman, Shri. S. K. Khadilkar ....Applicant V/S Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr ....Respondent Santosh Sawant For Applicant None present for the respondent CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J DATE : 5th July, 2018 P.C. : Leave Note is filed by the advocate appearing for respondent. Stand over to 26/07/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1478 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr. ....Applicant V/S Alankar Sahkari Griha ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 2589 OF 2015 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Alankar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, Through Chairman, Shri. S. K. Khadilkar ....Applicant V/S Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr ....Respondent Mr.Hafeez Patanwala i/by Mr.Santosh Sawant For Applicant Mr.N.P.Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J DATE : 26th July, 2018 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Applicant, stand over to 13/08/2018. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 1478 OF 2017 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr. ....Applicant V/S Alankar Sahkari Griha ....Respondent WITH CIVIL APPLICATION IN WP NO. 2589 OF 2015 In WRIT PETITION 4457 OF 2014 Alankar Sahakari Griha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit, Through Chairman, Shri. S. K. Khadilkar ....Applicant V/S Atul Mahadev Bhagat And Anr ....Respondent Sandesh Shukla a/w.Amit Singh i/b.Santosh Sawant For Applicant Nitin P.Deshpande for Respondent (Orig.Petitioner in WP) CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J DATE : 13th August, 2018 P.C. : Stand over to 16/8/2018. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO.17244 OF 2014 Chintaman R Abhyankar and anr. : Petitioners. Versus Veda Co­op. Housing Society Ltd. : Respondent. Mr. Y K Tiwari i/by Mr. Rajesh M Yadav for the Petitioners. Mr. N G Gupta i/by Mr. C M Lokesh for the Respondent. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 21st July 2014. P.C. 1 There is a concurrent finding recorded against the Petitioners and in favour of the RespondentSociety as regards the Petitioners entitlement to the stilt parking place purportedly sold to them by the builder by virtue of the agreement that was entered into between the Petitioners and the builder. The Cooperative Court rejected the application for interim reliefs filed by the Petitioners. The Cooperative Appellate Court has confirmed the order passed by the Cooperative Court. 2 The Apex court in the judgment reported in 2010 CTJ 98 (SC) in the matter of Nahalchand Laloochand Pvt. Ltd. v/s. Panchali Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. has held that under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act a builder is not entitled to sell the parking place in the stilt portion. It appears that in the instant case, the Society has already regulated the parking and has allotted the Petitioners a parking place in the property of the Society. The learned counsel for the Petitioners sought to contend that the judgment of the Apex court cannot have retrospective effect so as to affect the rights of the parties which have been created anterior in point of time. The judgment of the Apex Court lays down a proposition of law in the context of the obligations of a developer/promoter under the Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, and therefore there is no question of any retrospective or prospective application. Both the Courts below have therefore rightly relied upon the said judgment. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The above Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 7: 914-CAS-1334-2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1334 OF 2018 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST) NO.3953 OF 2017 Shri Sahebamin Mashaksaheb Patil … Applicant Vs Smt. Khajabi Peeransaheb Patil ... Respondent … Mr. J. Yadav I/by Mr. A.A.Joshi for the Applicant. CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : APRIL 11, 2019 P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 It is an application for condonation of delay of 4 days occurred in filing appeal against the judgment and decree dated 2nd November,2016 passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.40 of 2010. That for the reasons stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the application, delay is condoned and the application is allowed in terms of prayer clause (a). Place this appeal as per the CMIS date. (SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008 :­ APPLICANTS :­ RESPONDENTS :- Mr. Agnel Carneivo, i/b. M/s. Mulla and Mulla and CBC for the Applicants. Mr. Pravin Kamble, for Respondent Nos. 2A, 2C to 2E. Mr. Mohan B. Jadhav, for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6B. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JUNE 28, 2013 P.C. : Heard Mr. Agnel Carneivo, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicants. Issue notice to the heirs of Respondent No. 2B, returnable on 12th July, 2013. In addition to service of notice through Court, the advocate for the Applicants may serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery to the heirs of Respondent No. 2B and shall file affidavit of service before the returnable date. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2008 Nozer Sheriyar Mazda and Ors. : Applicants versus Gulab Shankar Dangat and Ors. : Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 830 OF 2013 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 803 OF 2001 Mr. Agnel Carneivo, i/b. M/s. Mulla and Mulla and CBC, for the Applicants. Mr. Anup Lahoti, for Respondent Nos. 2(B1) to 2(B3). Mr. Pravin V. Kamble, with Mr. Sharan Patole, for Respondent Nos. 2A to 2E in Second Appeal. Mr. Samrat K. Shinde, i/b. Mr. Tejas Deshpande, for Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Mr. S. P. Joshi, for Respondent No. 1 in Second Appeal. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2013 P.C. : At the request of Shri. Lahoti appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 2(B1) to 2(B3), adjourned to 23rd July, 2013. The parties to note that no further adjournment would be granted. (R. M. SAVANT, J.)

Order - Status 12: can-20-13.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.20 OF 2013 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.288 of 2008 Nozer Shriyar Mazda & Ors. : Applicants versus Gulab Shankar Dangat & Ors. : Respondents Mr. Agnel Carneivo i/b Mulla & Mulla CBC for the Applicants Mr. Mohan Jadhav for the Respondent Nos.3 to 6(B) Mr. Pravin Kamble for the Respondent Nos.2A, 2C to 2E Mr. T. D. Deshmukh for the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 CORAM: R M SAVANT, J DATED : 23rd JULY, 2013. P.C. 1 The above Civil Application has been filed for bringing the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) on record who are the Respondent Nos.2B1 to 2B3. In so far as the said heirs are concerned, they are represented by Mr. Lahoti whose appearance is shown on the cause list. The above Civil Application had appeared on 1972013 when at the request of Mr. Lahoti it was specifically adjourned for today, however today Mr. Lahoti has not appeared though the matter has been called out twice. This Court had made it clear on the last occasion that no further adjournment would be granted. The cause for filing the above Civil Application so as to join the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) as party Respondent is to facilitate the execution of the cancellation deed for cancelling the sale deed dated 217 2006. The Respondent No.2(A) to 2(E) have executed the sale deed dated 2162006 in favour of the Respondent Nos.7 and 8 which according to the Petitioners in the above Contempt Petition is in breach and violation of the order dated 2812002 passed in the above Second Appeal, by which order the parties were directed not to create third party rights in respect of the suit property. When the above Contempt Petition had come up before a Learned Single Judge of this Court on 2642013, the Learned Judge was informed by the parties that the Respondent Nos.2(A) to 2(E) would execute a cancellation deed cancelling the said sale deed dated 2172006, the order passed on the said day discloses that a draft of the cancellation deed was also produced before the Court. Since the Respondent No.2(B) has expired after the said sale deed was executed, the cancellation deed cannot be effectively executed without bringing the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) on record. As indicated above inspite of the matter being adjourned at the request of Mr. Lahoti, no appearance is put up for the heirs today. The Civil Application is accordingly allowed, resultantly the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) i.e. Respondent No.2B1, 2B2 and 2B3 are allowed to be brought on record of the Contempt Petition. Amendment can-20-13.sxw to be carried out within one week. Amended copy to be served on the concerned Advocates. The Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. 2 The parties have also agreed to cancel the partition deed between the Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2(A) to 2(E), it seems that an undertaking to that effect was given before this Court which has been recorded in the order dated 2232013. 3 Since the impediment of the heirs of the Respondent No.2(B) being not on record has now been removed. It is expected of the parties that they would execute the deed of cancellation of the sale deed as well as the deed of cancellation of the unregistered partition deed within one week of the time elapsing for carrying out the amendment, and report to this Court on the next date. The Contempt Petition is adjourned to 13th August, 2013. (R M SAVANT, J)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2016 IN REVIEW PETITION ST NO.8312 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2425 OF 1984 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (deceased) & Ors ..Applicants Vs. Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (deceased) ..Respondents Mr. V. V. Ugle for the Applicants CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 20th DECEMBER, 2016 P.C. 1 The hearing of the above Civil Application is deferred to 722017. The Petitioner to file additional affidavit giving the ages of the sons of the original Petitioner Bhagwan Bapu Veer and their avocation in life. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CA IN OTH.(MCA/TXA/CA/FERA) NO. 134 OF 2016 In REVIEW PETN. IN WP STAMP NO. 8312 OF 2016 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (decd) And Ors. Applicant V/S Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (decd) Respondent Shri Vaibhav V Ugle For Applicant CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 7th February, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 09/02/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: (904)-CAO-134-16.doc*.* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2016 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.8312 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2425 OF 1984 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (Deceased) Mr. Subarao Bhagwan Veer and others Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (Deceased) Versus Petitioner Bhagwan Bapu Veer (Deceased) and others Respondents Mr. V. V. Ugale for the Applicants. CORAM : CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 9th FEBRUARY, 2017 P.C. 1 The affidavit filed on behalf of the Applicants by one Pradip Panditrao Veer is not in terms of the directions as contained in the order dated 20.12.2016. The Applicants therefore to file a proper affidavit giving details as mentioned in the said order dated 20.12.2016. To facilitate the same, adjourned to 09.03.2017. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CA IN OTH.(MCA/TXA/CA/FERA) NO. 134 OF 2016 In REVIEW PETN. IN WP STAMP NO. 8312 OF 2016 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (decd) And Ors. Applicant V/S Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (decd) Respondent Shri Vaibhav V Ugle For Applicant CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 9th March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 16/03/2017. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CA IN OTH.(MCA/TXA/CA/FERA) NO. 134 OF 2016 In REVIEW PETN. IN WP STAMP NO. 8312 OF 2016 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (decd) And Ors. Applicant V/S Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (decd) Respondent Shri Vaibhav V Ugle For Applicant CORAM : R.M. SAVANT., J DATE : 16th March, 2017 P.C. : Stand over to 23/03/2017. To be placed on "Supplementary Board." ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.134 OF 2016 IN REVIEW PETITION STAMP NO.8312 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2425 OF 1984 Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer (Deceased) Applicants/ Mr. Subrao Bhagwan Veer and others Review Petitioners IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur (Deceased) Petitioner Versus Bhagwan Bapur Veer (Deceased) others Respondents Mr. Vaibhav V. Ugle for the Applicants/Review Petitioners. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 23rd MARCH, 2017 P.C. 1 The above Civil Application has been filed in the above Review Petition seeking condonation of delay of 18 years and 122 days in filing the above Review Petition. The Review Petition is filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 passed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2425 of 1984 by the said judgment the above Writ Petition was allowed. The judgment and order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ("MRT" for short) in so far as it dismissed the Revision Application on the ground of delay was set aside however the part of the judgment of the MRT by which the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer were set aside was sustained by the Learned Single Judge of this Court by the said judgment. The record discloses that none had appeared for the Respondent in the said Writ Petition i.e. Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer whose heirs are the Review Petitioners and also the Applicants herein. 2 The condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition is sought principally on the round that the Applicants were not aware of the above Writ Petition filed in this Court wherein their father Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer was the Respondent, and which Writ Petition he was prosecuting. It is their case that only when they made inquiries with the Revenue Authorities in respect of the land in question in the second week of January 2016 that they became aware of the judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 passed in the said Writ Petition. Save and except the said reason, there is no other reason mentioned in the above Civil Application in justification of the said delay of 18 years and 122 days. This Court by order dated 20.12.2016 had directed the Applicants to give details as regards the ages of the sons of the original Respondent i.e. Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer and their avocations in life. Accordingly an affidavit affirmed on 02.03.2017 has been filed in support of the above Civil Application. In the said affidavit, it has been stated that Mr. Bhagwan Bapur Veer has expired on 10.12.1986 and that he had four sons, namely Mukund, Shivaji, Pandit and Subrao. It has further been stated that Mukund has expired on 22.10.2013, Shivaji has expired on 28.06.1990, Pandit has expired on 22.10.1985 i.e. he is predeceased his father and Subrao i.e. present Applicant No.1 is about 65 years of age and was about 45 years old when the judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 came to be passed. It therefore appears that Subrao i.e. the Applicant No.1 is the youngest son of the Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer and therefore all of them were major when the said judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 came to be passed. 3 It would be relevant to refer to the proceedings under the Tenancy Act which resulted in the filing of the said Writ Petition No.2425 of 1984. The Petitioner therein Smt. Sitabai Vyanku Taur was the wife of Vyanku Taur who had filed an application under Section 70(b) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, for declaration that he is the tenant. The said application was allowed by the Tenancy Authorities and declaration came to be issued that the said Vyanku Taur was a tenant as on 01.04.1957 tillers day. The said declaration of tenancy became final and binding. It seems that the Tahsildar in the proceedings filed for fixation of the purchase price held that the said Vyanku Taur was not a tenant on 01.04.1957 and therefore Section 32O of the said Act would be applicable. The lands were therefore directed to be restored to the landlord resorting to the provisions of Section 32P of the said Act. Against the said order, the Petitioner filed an Appeal which came to be dismissed by the Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 21.11.1981. The Petitioner carried the matter by way of a Revision before the MRT. The MRT having regard to the earlier adjudication whereby the application filed under Section 70(b) filed by Vanku Taur was allowed and he was declared as tenant as on 01.04.1957 held that the Tahsildar and the Sub Divisional Officer i.e. Lower Authorities had erred in recording a finding that Vyanku Taur was not a tenant, when the said issue was barred by resjudicata. However the MRT on the ground that the Revision was belated by 545 days, had therefore after recording findings in favour of the tenant i.e. Vyanku Taur had dismissed the Revision on the ground of delay. The said judgment and order dated 20.01.1984 of the MRT was the subject matter of the above Writ Petition. As indicated above, a Learned Single Judge having regard to the earlier adjudication found fault with the order of the MRT dismissing the Revision on the ground of delay when according to the Learned Single Judge there was merit in the Revision Application filed by the tenant. The Learned Single Judge accordingly set aside the dismissal of the Revision on the ground of delay however affirmed the order passed by the MRT in so far as the setting aside of the order passed by the Tahsildar and Sub Divisional Officer is concerned, hence the said issue of Vyanku Taur being a tenant was also concluded by the Learned Single Judge by the judgment and order of which review is sought. This fact implies that the heirs of the original tenant are in possession of the land in question as tenants. 4 Now, coming to the ground on which condonation is sought namely that the Petitioners were not aware of the proceedings as also the ground which is urged across the bar that the heirs of the said landlord Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer were not brought on record and therefore the judgment is against a dead person. In my view, it is not impossible to accept that the Applicants who were all major in the year 1997 being between the ages of 18 and 30 were not aware of the proceedings which were pending in respect of the tenancy claimed by the said Vyanku Taur. In so far as the second ground is concerned, it was for the Advocate for the Respondent i.e. Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer to inform the Advocate for the original Petitioner as regards his death as also inform the names of heirs of the said Mr. Bhagwan Bapu Veer. This admittedly has not been done and the same is sought to be justified on the ground that the Applicants were not aware of the pending Writ Petition. Hence, there is no merit in the second ground also. In my view, having regard to the aforesaid facts and considering that a period of about 20 years has elapsed since the passing of the judgment and order dated 15.10.1997 the delay cannot be condoned. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in Smt. Gangadevi Vs. Union of India and another delivered on 01.10.1996 , in my view, would not aid the case of the Applicants having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. No relief can therefore be granted to the Applicants in the above Civil Application. The same is accordingly rejected. 5 In view of the rejection of the Civil Application, the Review Petition which suffers from the delay of 18 years and 122 days would not survive and to accordingly stand disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 5339 OF 2013 Shri Bartol Degin Farnat and Ors ..Petitioners Vs. Shri Pascol Manvel Gonsalves and Ors ..Respondents Ms. Neeta Karnik,for the Petitioners. Mr. P. B. Shah i/b Mr. Kayval P. Shah,for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : RAVI K. DESHPANDE *,* J. DATE : JULY 1, 2013. P. C.: 1 Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2 The learned counsel for the PetitionersPlaintiffs submits that it is the case of the Plaintiffs that the road in question is of 20 feet wide and it has been reduced to 2.8 feet because of the obstruction created by the Defendants in the way. With the assistance of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have gone through the orders passed by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have taken into consideration the report of the Commissioner. However, there is no finding recorded, on prima facie assessment of the case on the question whether there existed 20 feet road and that it was reduced to 2.8 feet by the Aswale 1/2 5339.13.wp Defendants by creating obstruction. In the absence of any such finding, the orders impugned cannot be sustained. The same needs to be quashed and set aside. The orders are required to be remanded back to the Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. 3 In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. 4 The order dated 28.09.2011 passed by the Trial court and also by the Appellate Court dated 12.04.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside. 5 The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court to decide Exhibit5 filed in Regular Civil Suit No. 159 OF 2009, afresh within a period of three months from the date of first appearance of the parties before it. 6 Parties to appear before the Trial Court on 15.07.2013. 7 The Trial Court is at liberty to grant adinterim relief, if such is claimed by the parties. ( RAVI K. DESHPANDE *,* J.)