All Writ Petition (Civil)

Order - Status 4: Vishwanath S. Sherla Digitally signed by Vishwanath S. Sherla Date: 2021.01.25 17:06:01 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2021 Raju Paulas Pakhare … Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra & another … Respondents Mr.Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner Ms.A.S. Pai, Mr.J.P. Yagnik, Ms.S.D. Shinde, Mr.K.V. Saste, Additional Public Prosecutors for Respondent – State CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED: JANUARY 25, 2021 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. 2. Issue notice to the Respondents, returnable on 4 th February, 2021. 3. In addition to service of notice through Court, the Petitioner shall serve a private notice by Registered Post A.D. and/or by Courier service and/or by hand delivery or by e-mail/fax on the Respondents and shall file affidavit of service with tangible proof before the returnable date**.** 4. The learned APP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent – State. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Appearances of the Advocates as per Board dated 04/02/2021. … CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. DATED : 04TH FEBRUARY, 2021. P.C:- Matters from Sr. Nos.68 to 135 of the Board stands discharged. Following dates are assigned to the said matters: Sr. Nos. Due Date 68 to 75 09-02-2021 76 to 78, 81 and 83 to 84 10-02-2021 85 to 99 and 115 11-02-2021 100 to 105 15-02-2021 107 to 114 16-02-2021 117 to 130 17-02-2021 131 to 133 and 135 18-02-2021 79 08/02/2021 Ad-interim interim reliefs, if any, to continue till then. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 9: Vishwanath S. Sherla Digitally signed by Vishwanath S. Sherla Date: 2021.02.16 19:51:33 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2021 Raju Paulas Pakhare … Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & another … Respondents Mr.Aniket Vagal for the Petitioner Mr.Deepak Thakare, Public Prosecutor, for Respondent – State CORAM: S.S. SHINDE & MANISH PITALE, JJ. JUDGMENT RESERVED ON: FEBRUARY 11, 2021 JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON: FEBRUARY 16, 2021 JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and heard finally. 2. The Petitioner had applied for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole for 45 days in view of the Covid-19 pandemic and the amendment in the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959. However, his application was rejected vide order dated 19th May, 2020 passed by Respondent No.2 – Superintendent of Jail, Yerwada Open District Prison, on the ground that the petitioner, in the past, during his stay in the jail, had availed of parole / fulough leave twice, however, reported to the prison late. The petitioner is a convict undergoing sentence of life imprisonment. The petitioner has been in jail since last 10 years. 3. Mr.Vagal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, relied upon the judgments of this Court in Kalyan s/o. Bansidharrao Renge vs. The State of Maharashtra & another (Criminal Writ Petition No.ASDB-LDVC-265 of 2020) and Uzair @ Hujer s/o. Rafiq Shaikh vs. The State of Maharashtra & Others (Criminal Writ Petition No.2989 of 2020) to contend that the ground stated in the impugned order was wholly unsustainable. It was, therefore, submitted that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, opposed the petition for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole. It was submitted that the petitioner had reported late on both the occasions when he was released on parole/furlough. Now the situation in the Yerwada Open District Prison, Pune, has changed substantially. It was submitted that the number of inmates in the said prison are less than the capacity. It was submitted that there is no crowd in the jail and that the authorities have sufficient infrastructure now to immediately take care of any inmate or staff, who may suffer from Covid-19 virus. 5. We have perused the record forwarded by the respondents to the office of the Public Prosecutor of this Court. The petitioner was released twice in the past on parole/furlough, however, he had reported to the prison late. The facts and figures stated therein indicate that in pursuance of release of number of inmates due to Covid-19 pandemic, now the situation in the Yerwada Open District Prison, Pune, has changed substantially. There can be no doubt about the fact that the petitioner is justified in relying upon the aforesaid judgments of this Court to claim that the reason assigned in the impugned order is unsustainable. 6. At the same time, the fact situation on ground as on today, cannot be ignored and, therefore, there is substance in the contention raised on behalf of the learned APP that the request of the petitioner for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole needs to be considered afresh. 7. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The petitioner is granted liberty to apply afresh for grant of emergency Covid-19 parole within one week from today. Upon filing such an application, the respondent No.2 shall decide the same on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, however, within two weeks from the date of such filing of the application in accordance with the Prisons (Bombay Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 and keeping in view the factors like the extent of spread of Covid-19 virus and conditions in jail. 8. Rule is partly made absolute to the above extent. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (MANISH PITALE, J.) (S.S. SHINDE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (ST.)NO.15103 OF 2018 Shyamlal Sampatraj Soni & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. .. Respondent …... Mr.Vijay V. Sonawane, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr.Shashank N. Fadia, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. (VACATION COURT) DATED : MAY 30, 2018. …... P.C. : After having heard Mr.Sonawane, learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court was inclined to show indulgence subject to condition that applicant depositing an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- through a Demand Draft in this Court by 1st June, 2018. The petitioner is not agreeable to the said condition. Mr.Fadia, learned counsel for the respondent has informed that the outstanding against the petitioners are to the tune of Rs.57,00,000/-. According to him, the petitioners have already approached DRT Mumbai vide Securitisation Application No.85 of 2018, wherein similar prayer was already rejected on 7th March, 2018. He has tendered copy of the order passed by the DRT Mumbai to that effect. 2 When confronted, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has no instructions on the said issue as to whether the petitioners have approached DRT Mumbai in the matter or not. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the petitioners have already approached the DRT Mumbai and appropriate remedy is available to the petitioners against the order of DRT Mumbai passed on 7th May, 2018, we are not inclined to cause any interference. Writ Petition is dismissed. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

Order - Status 5: FARAD CONTINUATION IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Orders Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders None present for the petitioner Mr.S.N.Gawade A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J DATE : 26th NOVEMBER 2009 P.C. : None present for the petitioner when called. Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1835 of 2009 Kiran Dhondopant Thakur ....Petitioner v/s. State of Maharashtra & anr. ....Respondents Mr. D.V. Sutar for the petitioner. Ms. A.T. Jhaveri-APP for the State. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI, J. 18th July, 2011 PC: Issue notice for final disposal, returnable on or before 16th August, 2011. Ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b). (B.R. GAVAI, J)

Order - Status 16: rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1835 OF 2009 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. None present. ..... ..... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 12, 2011. P.C.: None for the petitioners. Petition is dismissed for non prosecution. (A.S.OKA, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2009 Kiran D. Thakur and anr. ...Petitioners v/s The State of Maharashtra and anr. ...Respondents None for Petitioners. Mrs S.V. Gajare Dhumal, APP for Respondent State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL J. DATED : 3RD DECEMBER 2013. P.C. : The learned counsel for petitioners is again called, absent. S.O. to 19th December 2013. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1835 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 358 OF 2013 IN CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1835 OF 2009 Kiran Dhondopant Thakur and another .....Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & another ....Respondents Mr. D. V. Sutar Advocate for Petitioner Mr. Y. M. Nakhwa APP for the State. CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : JANUARY 16, 2014 PC : Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that co-accused had filed a petition seeking quashing of the proceedings. This Court (Coram : A. S. Oka, J.) by an order dated 13/07/2009, has issued Rule and granted interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'b'. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petitioners are similarly situated, hence : Rule. Interim relief in terms of prayer clause 'b'. (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)

Order - Status 25: Ghuge IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2009 Kiran Dhondopant Thakur and Anr … Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr … Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.358 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1835 OF 2009 Kiran Dhondopant Thakur and Anr … Applicants V/s. State of Maharashtra and Anr … Respondents Ms. Kavita Vijapure i/b D.V. Sutar for the petitioners. Smt. M.R. Tidke, APP for the State. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : APRIL 26, 2023 P.C.: Learned advocate for the petitioners has filed praecipe for withdrawal of the petition. In that view of the matter, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. In view of dismissal of the writ petition, Criminal Application stands disposed of accordingly. (AMIT BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of appearances, Court's or Judge's orders Court's orders or directions & Registrar Registrar's orders. Mr. G. K. Anand i/by Mohd. Shine with S. S. Bijlani for petitioners in WP No. 2129 of 2016. Mr. G. K. Anand i/by Manish Rai for petitioners in WP No. 2146 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ **.** July 05, 2016. P.C. : Issue notice to respondents, returnable after four weeks i.e. 2/8/2016. Learned APP waives notice on behalf of respondent no.1 – State. Till the next date i.e. 2/8/2016, we direct that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners in respect of the subject crime. However, it is clarified that there is no stay to the investigation. (PRAKASH D. NAIK *,* J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2129 OF 2016 WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2146 OF 2016 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Mohd.Shine with S.S.Bijlani for Petitioner in WP No.2146 of 2016. Mr.G.K.Masand i/by Manish Rai for Petitioner in WP No.2129 of 2016. Mr.Kanishk Jayant with Mr.Harvinder Singh for Respondent no.2. Mrs.S.D.Shinde, APP, for State. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATE : 2nd August 2016 PC :­ 1. Not on board. Upon mentioning taken on board. 2. Heard. Learned counsel for Respondent no.2 appears. Stand over to 10 August 2016. Ad­interim relief granted earlier to continue till 10 August 2016. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION NO.2129 OF 2016 Commander Kamaljeet Singh Bhatti (Retired) & Ors. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PEITION NO.2146 OF 2016 Ghara Singh (Retired) & Anr. .. Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents …... Mr. Mohd. Shine a/w. S.S. Bijlani, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P. No.2129 of 2016. Mr.G.K. Masand i/b. Mr.Manish Rai, Advocate for the Petitioners in W.P.No.2146 of 2016. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for Respondent - State in both the petitions. Mr. Kanishk K. Jayant, Advocate for Respondent Respondent no.2 in both the petitions. …... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 11, 2016. P.C. : Heard learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Following issues arise for consideration: (a) Whether petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste in relation to the State of Maharashtra; (b) Whether petitioners belong to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab; (c) Whether FIR/complaint registered against accused persons attracts penal provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short "the SC & ST Act") 2 In the facts and reading compliant whether penal offence is attracted, learned counsel appearing for petitioners places reliance on following judgments: (a) Marri Chandra Shekhar Rao Vs. Dean, Seth G.S. Medical College & Ors. 1 (b) State of Mahrashtra Vs. Milind & Ors. 2 (c) Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P. & Ors. 3 (d) Ghanshyam Kala s/o. Jagat Ram Kala Vs. The State 4 (e) Udaysingh Ramsingh Pawar Vs. The State of Maharashtra 5 (e) Dhiren Prafulbhai Shah Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 6 1 (1990) 3 SCC 130 2 (2001) 1 SCC 4 3 (2008) 12 SCC 531 4 2009(1) Uttaranchal Decision 639 5 2003(3) Mh.L.J 225 6 (2010) 8 SCC 775 3 Learned counsel appearing for complainant prays for dismissal of these petitions. It was submitted that complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste in the State of Punjab and in relation to the State of Maharashtra, the issue is required to be considered on a broader prospective. Learned counsel referred to Article 17 of the Constitution of India. 4 Learned APP submits that investigation is likely to be completed within three to four weeks. 5 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. We find that the issues raised by petitioners for consideration. 6 Rule. Rule returnable early. 7 In the meantime, further proceedings consequent to registration of FIR stands stayed. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2129 OF 2016 Commander Kamaljeet Singh Bhatti (Retired) & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2146 OF 2016 Mr. Ghara Singh (Retired) & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. .. Respondents Mr.Mohd. Shine i/b S.S. Bijlani for petitioners in WP/2129/2016. Mr.Manish Rai for petitioner in WP/2146/2016. Mr.F.R. Shaikh, APP for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Kaushik Jayant a/w. Ms. Antra Jayant, Mr. Nilesh Mandavkar, Mr. Rajye Jain i/b Kanishk Jayant for respondent No.2 in WP/2129/2016 and WP/2146/2016. CORAM : RANJIT MORE & N.J. JAMADAR, JJ. DATE : 9TH OCTOBER 2019 P.C. 1. Not on board. Mentioned, in view of urgency. Taken on production board. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties in both petitions. 3. The subject first information report bearing C.R. No. II-15/2016, dated 18-05-2016 on the complaint of the respondent No.2 (in both petitions) for the offences punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.2146 of 2016, are the original accused Nos.1 and 2 in the subject crime and the petitioners in Writ Petition No.2129 of 2016 are the original accused Nos.3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the subject crime. 4. Pending investigation of the subject crime, the parties have settled their dispute amicably and accordingly the complainantrespondent No.2 has submitted consent terms before the Civil Judge, Senior Division-Panvel in Hindu Marriage Petition No.297 of 2015. The copy of the consent terms presented before the Court. Clause (4) of the consent terms reads as under :- 4 The petitioner Husband has agreed to give his consent for quashing of FIR filed by him bearing No. II-15/2016 dated 18 th May 2016 u/s 3(1)(10) of Atrocities Act, 1989 and section 7(1)(5) of Protection of Civil Rights Act. 1955 with CBD Police Station, Navi Mumbai against father of the Respondent i.e., the Gharasingh Chahal, Gurmit Kaur, Gurbax Singh, Hardeep Singh Anjan, Mehersingh Randhava, K.J.S. Bhatti, Gurinderjit Saini. The Petitioner-husband is agreed to give his consent and/or file an affidavit to that effect in Writ Petition bearing No. 2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition bearing No. 2129 of 2016 filed in respect of said FIR bearing No.II-15/2016." 5. In view of the above understanding, the parties have approached this Court for quashing the subject crime. The respondent No.2 has filed a common affidavit dated 9 th October 2019 in both Writ Petitions, i.e., Writ Petition No.2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2129 of 2016 and in paragraph 6 thereof, has given consent to the withdrawal of all the charges levelled in the subject crime. The respondent No.2 is personally present in Court and on specific query by this Court, confirmed that he has no objection to quash the subject FIR. 6. It can, thus, be seen that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties. From the perusal of complaints, it transpires that the allegations are totally personal in nature. In these circumstances, and especially, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab 1 , we find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. Accordingly, both petitions are allowed in terms of prayer clause (a), respectively. However, at the same time, costs need to be saddled on the petitioners for using the police and judicial machinery for settling their personal disputes. In view of this, the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2146 of 2016 and Writ Petition No. 2129 of 2016 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs in each petition. The total amount of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to "Tata Memorial Hospital", an institution that takes care of the patients suffering from cancer at advanced stage and/or terminally ill due to cancer. For the quashment to take effect, the petitioners shall pay the said costs and produce the receipt thereof on the file of this Court within the period of four weeks from today. Failing to pay cost and produce receipt within stipulated time, petitions shall stand dismissed automatically without further reference 1 2014 AIR SCW 2065 to the Court and order quashing the proceedings/FIR shall be treated as non-est. 8. Subject to above, the writ petitions stand disposed of. [ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ] [ RANJIT MORE, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.7624 of 2004 Shri Shankar Narsaiah Samala ..Petitioner vs. 1. Administrative Officer Municipal Education Board Bhiwandi, and ors. ..Respondents Shri M.S.Lagu for petitioner Shri R.M.Agrawal with Shri G.R.Agrawal for respondent no.1. Shri R.D.Rane, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos. 2 and 3. CORAM: A.P.SHAH AND S.C.DHARMADHIKARI JJ 23rd NOVEMBER, 2004 P.C. Heard Advocates. Shri Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri Rane, Addl.G.P. appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3 fairly conceded that the impugned directions were issued without affording to the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. It is obvious that there was violation of the principles of natural justice. It appears that respondent no.1 has suspended the payment of trained teacher to the petitioner solely on the basis of the directions given by the Deputy Director. At no stage the petitioner was heard by any of these authorities. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of recovery. We direct the Deputy Director to grant personal hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. All contentions on merits are left open to the parties. Petition is disposed of.

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6504 OF 2004 Mohammed Maqbool Khan. .. Petitioner (Org.Defendant) Vs. Shaikh Riaysat Ali Driver. .. Respondent (Org.Plaintiff) -- Shri A.A.Mirza & N.Y.Shaikh for the petitioner. Shri P.S.Dani with Shri J.S.Yadav for the respondent. -- CORAM : R.M.S.KHANDEPARKAR, J DATED : 26th OCTOBER, 2004. P.C. Heard. The petitioner challenges the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below dismissing the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree which was passed against the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is that the matter was adjourned from 14th July, 2000 to 26th July, 2000. However, instead of taking up the matter on 26th July, 2000, it was taken up for hearing on 25th July, 2000, and thereafter it was adjourned to 20th September, 2000. But, the trial Court disposed of the matter on 11th August, 2000 itself i.e. much prior to the date fixed for hearing of the matter. The contention of the petitioner is that on 26th July, 2000, the petitioner's advocate appeared in the Court but having been informed by the clerk of the advocate that the matter was adjourned to 20th September, 2000, he did not attend the hearing of the matter which took place subsequent to the 26th July, 2000 i.e. much prior to 20th September, 2000. Both the Courts below have disbelieved the petitioner's contention in this regard while observing that the records do not disclose that the advocate for the petitioner himself having attended the Court either on 26th July, 2000 or any other date thereafter. Undisputedly, no steps were taken by the petitioner and his advocate to record their presence in the Court on 26th July, 2000, neither any application was filed for taking the matter on board on 26th July, 2000 if the matter was not listed for hearing on the same day on the board of the trial Court, nor attention was drawn of the trial Court regarding the appearance of the petitioner and his advocate in the Court on 26th July, 2000. It is not also the case of the petitioner that steps were taken to verify the adjourned date of hearing of the matter either on 26th July, 2000 or any time thereafter till 20th September, 2000. In case, the petitioner was genuinely interested in contesting the matter, certainly knowing well that the matter was adjourned from 14th July, 2000 to 25th July, 2000 or 26th July, 2000 as alleged by the petitioner, for regarding of evidence, he would have certainly verified as to what had happened on 25th July, 2000 in order to avoid the consequence of ex part proceeding against the petitioner. Apparently, the petitioner did not bother to know anything about the proceedings which had taken place on 25th July, 2000 even though he claims to have appeared in the Court on 26th July, 2004. In the circumstances, therefore, both the Courts below having arrived at the concurrent findings regarding failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose the reason for absence in the Court on the date when the matter was disposed of ex parte, no fault can be found with the said findings, nor the same warrant any interference in writ jurisdiction as it cannot be said that the Courts below have exercised their discretion either arbitrarily or illegally, in the facts and circumstances of the case. Being so, the petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. _____ 4 -

Order - Status 8: SSK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8084 OF 2013 Shri Kiran Uttamrao Hole & ors. ....Petitioners Versus Shri Tukaram Genbhau Ambekar & ors. ....Respondents Mr. Vasant Adsul, advocate for the petitioners. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 19th November, 2013. P.C.: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petition pertains to recording of mutation entry. It is now a settled position of law that mutation entry does not create or extinguish rights of the party and the same is recorded only for fiscal purposes. The parties are always at liberty to approach the Civil Court to get their rights adjudicated. A reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Balwant Singh & Another V/s. Daulat Singh reported in 1997(7) SCC 137. Sr.No30. Wp 8084.13 In the present case, the petitioner as well as respondents have filed civil suits and same are pending for adjudication. A mutation entry is always subject to the outcome of the civil proceedings. Suffice it is to observe that the Civil Court shall decide the rights of the respective parties independently on its own merits and without being influenced by the findings recorded by the revenue authorities in the proceedings for recording mutation entry. In the light of the above observation, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order in the jurisdiction of this Court conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)