Jose George

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2295 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5763 OF 2004 Janabai w/o R.J.Bhandari & Ors. ...Applicants V/s. Dr.Ramesh Dattatreya Pandit & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.Jose George for Applicants. Mr.D'Souza for Respondent No.4. ...... CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. JANUARY 27, 2009. P.C. Office objection be removed within two weeks from today, failing which, Application to stand dismissed for non-prosecution without further reference to the Court. If steps are taken in time, Application be listed on 11th February 2009. A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2295 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5763 OF 2004 Janabai w/o.R.J.Bhandari & Ors. ..Applicants. V/s. Dr.Ramesh Dattatreya Pandit & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.Jose George for applicants. Mr.D'Souza for Respondent No.4. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2009. P.C. : Counsel for the parties fairly submits that this application will have to proceed before Justice Mhase having regard to the nature of relief claimed. Accordingly, Office is directed to place the application before Justice Mhase subject to convenience of His Lordship. Liberty to apply. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)

Order - Status 11: HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Application No. 2295 of 2006 IN Writ Petition No. 5763 of 2004 Janabai w/o R. J. Bhandari & Ors. Applicants. Versus Dr. Ramesh D. Pandit & Others. Respondents. Mr. Jose George for the Applicants. Mr. D'souza a/w Mr. A. S. Rai for the Respondent no.4. Coram : S. B. Mhase, JJ. Date : August 27, 2009. P. C. : Heard. This civil application is moved for removing the observations made by this Court in the order dated 27th April 2006. They want to delete following sentence from the said order : "Thus, this Court finds that so far as the identification of the property of S. C. Suit No. 4374 of 1978 is concerned there is no dispute between the parties." What is important to be noted is that the property was in possession of the Receiver. The Receiver identified the property of the plaintiff and prepared the measurement plan. As per the said plan the Receiver has placed the plaintiff in possession of the property and that was admitted by the original plaintiff before this Court. The defendants were also party in that proceeding before this Court. At that time they have not objected to the said plan. Therefore, on admitted facts the property has been identified by the Receiver and possession has been handed over to the plaintiff. It is also important to note that though the present civil application is filed in the year 2006, till date it was not pressed and circulated at any point of time. Probably, with a view that by the time matter comes before the Court, the Court will forget everything what had happened in 2006. However, fortunately everything has been correctly recorded by the Court and on that basis the order has been passed. There is no substance in the application and the same is hereby rejected. (S.B.MHASE, J.)