All Cases

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

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

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 14th March, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 25/04/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SARANG VIJAYKUMAR KOTWAL J DATE : 25th April, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 04/08/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav Petitioner Vs. Subhash Namdev Shinde & Ors. Respondents Mr. P. M. Arjunwadkar for the Petitioner. CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 3rd JULY 2023. P. C. 1. Heard. The challenge in the petition is to the order dated 30/11/2022 rejecting the petitioner's application for sending the thumb impression to the handwriting expert. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it is specific case of the petitioner that she was not present at the time of execution of agreement to sale and thumb impression appearing on the agreement to sale is not her thumb impression. He would further submit that the trial court erred in holding there is presumption of correctness under the provisions of the Registration Act 1908 regarding registered instrument. He would further submit that the handwriting expert's opinion would be relevant for adjudicating the dispute inasmuch as the specific case to that effect has been put forward by the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, to issue notice to respondent No.1-original plaintiff returnable after a period of three weeks. Hamdast permitted. In addition to court notice, the petitioner to serve respondent No.1 by private notice and file affidavit of service before the next date. 5. Stand over to 24/7/2023. SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 24th July, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 31/07/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors ....RESPONDENT GANESH YOGESH DESAI CORAM : HON'BLE JUSTICE SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH J DATE : 31st July, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 07/09/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 7th September, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 17/10/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 17th October, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 07/12/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Subhash Namdev Shinde And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT BORKAR J DATE : 4th December, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/01/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.3091 of 2023 Shri Savitri Shekuram Jadhav … Petitioner V/s. Shri Subhash Namdev Shinde & others … Respondents. Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar a/w. Mr. Raj S. Satam Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Amol Suryawanshi a/w. Mr. Ganesh Desai Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J DATE : 02 December 2024. P.C. : Mentioned out of turn by learned Advocate Shri Arjunwadkar for the petitioner. Heard learned counsel for respondent-plaintiff. The order which is challenged in this petition is dated 30 November 2021(Page-59) passed on the application of the defendant for sending the agreement in question for examination of hand-writing expert. The signature of the petitioner is in dispute. He wants the opinion of the expert. It is submitted on behalf of plaintiff-respondent that the plaintiff has filed affidavit and cross-examination of the defendant is over. This is disputed by the learned Advocate for the petitioner. LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Digitally signed by LATA SUNIL PANJWANI Date: 2024.12.07 11:42:45 +0530 Even it is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent that he wants to examine few more witnesses. Even though the contention of the petitioner may be correct at this stage, he can certainly put up his theory during cross-examination. The question of examining the expert will come later on. Considering the other work load, it is difficult to hear this matter today or tomorrow. Stand over to 17 December 2024, First on Board. (S.M. MODAK, J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav … Petitioner vs. Subhash Namdev Shinde and Ors. … Respondents ***** Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar a/w. Mr. Dhananjay A. Utture :- Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Amol Suryawanshi a/w. Mr. Ganesh Desai :- Advocates for Respondent No.1. ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 17 th DECEMBER 2024 P. C. :- For the reasons recorded separately, which are under typing, I pass following operative order : OPERATIVE ORDER (i) The order dated 30th November 2021 passed by the Court of CJJD, Vita in Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2017 is set aside. (ii) The application filed by the defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav in that Suit thereby praying for examination of the Agreement to Sale through an expert is allowed. (iii) The defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav is at liberty to suggest the name of the expert and the trial Court, after hearing both the sides, fix the name of expert. The charges will be born by the defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav. (iv) The petitioner/ defendant No.5 is at liberty to produce documents having her admitted thumb impressions for the purpose of comparison. The trial Court to pass necessary directions. (v) The appointed expert is at liberty to go through the Agreement to Sale by visiting the Court after taking permission of the Court. (vi) The trial Court to pass necessary directions to the expert about examination. (vii) If there is an issue about the procedure and the findings by the expert, both the parties are at liberty to agitate their grievances before the trial Court and not before this Court. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Writ Petition is allowed. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 24: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ] Age - 64 years, Occu Household, ] R/o. Village Dahivadi, Tal. Tasgaon, ] District – Sangli. ]… Petitioner Versus 1. Subhash Namdev Shinde, Age – 54 years, Occu Agriculture, R/o. Village Lengare, ] ] ] Tal. Khanapur, Dist. Sangli ] ] 2. Dilip Sadashiv Shinde Age – 57 years, Occu Agriculture ] ] ] 3. Sitaram Sadashiv Shinde Age - 49 years, Occu Agriculture ] ] ] 4. Yesabai Sadashiv Shinde Age – 59 years, Occu Household and Agril. ] ] ] 5. Bhagirathi Prakash Yadav Age – 59 years, Occu Household and Agril. No2 to 5 R/o. Village Lingare, Tal. Khanapur Dist. Sangli. ] ] ] ]… Respondents ***** Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar a/w. Mr. Dhananjay A. Utture :- Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Amol Suryawanshi a/w. Mr. Ganesh Desai :- Advocates for Respondent No.1. ***** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : 17 th DECEMBER 2024 ORAL ORDER :- Heard learned Advocate Mr.Arjunwadkar for petitioner/ defendant No.5 and learned Advocate Mr.Suryawanshi for respondent No.1/ plaintiff. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. The only issue arisen in this petition is whether " the present petitioner is having right to insist for examination of her alleged thump impression on the agreement for sale which is registered on 19 th April 2001" (page No.18). She has expressed her desire vide application dated 11 th November 2019 (page No.54) which was rejected by the trial Court as per the order dated 13 th November 2024. It is by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vita. The said order is challenged by the defendant No.5 by way of this Petition. Background facts There are two Suits filed by the parties against each other. The details are as follows :- (i) Regular Civil Suit No.329 of 2012 filed by the present petitioner against in all 6 defendants. Present respondent No.1 is defendant No.1 therein. Following are the reliefs sought :- (a) It be declared that the agreement for sale dated 19th April 2001 executed by the defendants No.2 to 6 (as vendors) in favour of defendant No.1 as a purchaser is not binding on the plaintiff. (b) There are ancillary reliefs. The material averments find place in paragraph No.4 of the plaint. The plaintiff - Savitri has averred that she has never executed an agreement for sale dated 19th April 2001. (ii) There is Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2012 filed by one Subhash/ respondent No.1 against in all six defendants. The present petitioner - Savitri is defendant No.5. The plaintiff has sought for specific performance of registered agreement for sale dated 19th April 2001 and for other ancillary reliefs. The trial Court has framed issues in both the Suits and the respective plaintiffs have started with their evidence also. So in a Suit filed by plaintiff - Savitri she is seeking declaration and whereas in a Suit filed by the plaintiff – Subhash, he is seeking specific performance. Both of them wants to refer the agreement for sale from a different perspective. The trial Court rejected the application for following reasons :- (a) The disputed agreement for sale was produced on record on dated 11th December 2012. The defendant No.5 was aware of existence of that instrument. (b) The plaintiff Subhash has filed his evidence affidavit on 18th January 2016 and he was also cross-examined by defendant No.5 – Savitri on 15th October 2019. (c) The defendant No.5 was having ample opportunities from the time of filing of Written Statement till filing of evidence affidavit by the plaintiff. However, she has not raised any objection for long time and only after cross-examination she has filed present application. (d) The defendant No.5 can prove her pleadings by other options. (e) Once the terms of agreement are reduced into writing, no other evidence can be adduced to disprove contents of the instrument. The only exception is provided in proviso 1 to 5 to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act). (f) The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the defendants have executed an agreement for sale. Submissions According to learned Advocate Mr. Arjunwadkar, the evidence of an expert is relevant as per Section 45 of the Evidence Act. He tried to 1 WP 3091 of 2023.doc submit that the provisions of proviso to Section 92 of the Evidence Act are not relevant. Even he tried to contend that burden to prove nonexecution by the defendant No.5 lies on the plaintiff – Subhash. Whereas learned advocate for respondent No.1 supported the order and submitted that the agreement for sale is a registered document. It has got more evidentiary value than an unregistered agreement for sale. According to Mr. Arjunwadkar, agreement for sale is not compulsorily registrable as per the Indian Registration Act 1908 (Registration Act). This Court feels the reasoning given by the trial Court are erroneous. This Court is inclined to set aside the said order for following reasons :- (i) The trial Court has overlooked the fact of filing of the Suit by the petitioner - Savitri challenging the agreement for sale and it is pending. She has denied execution of said agreement. (ii) At two places she has clarified her stand :- (a) by making necessary averments in her plaint (b) by making necessary averments in the Written Statement filed to the Suit filed by Subhash. (iii) As per procedure followed for trial of the Suit, the stage of recording of evidence comes at a later stage. First the pleadings are to be completed. (iv) The petitioner Savitri is aware about the burden which lies on her shoulder. She is not only the defendant but she is plaintiff also. The copies of the issues framed in both the Suits are not made available. But if we go by law of pleadings and the provisions of Evidence Act, the burden generally lies on a party who pleads a particular fact. In a Suit filed by the plaintiff – Savitri she has averred that she has not executed the agreement for sale. Naturally the burden will lie on her. Merely because the plaintiff – Subhash has also sought for specific performance of that agreement, it does not mean that the plaintiff – Savitri is relived from proving said fact because by asking the plaintiff – Subhash to discharge the burden through execution, she is not going to be benefited. She has to stand on her own foots. (v) Both the Suits are at the stage of recording of evidence. No doubt the application for examination was filed in a Suit in which she is a defendant. In fact in her Suit there is burden on her to prove non-execution. (vi) It is true as per the Evidence Act when there is a documentary evidence the original has to be produced. It is also principle of Evidence Act if a party wants to believe the Court about the document, there can be no evidence other than the document itself. It is also principle of Evidence Act that party cannot adduce oral evidence to prove contrary to contents of document. There are only certain exceptions. One of the exception is "when the party is disputing the execution of that document". So that is how the proviso (1) to Section 92 of Evidence Act comes into picture. The fact may be proved which will invalidate the document. In this case there is a challenge to execution of the document. For all above reasons the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application. It has to be allowed. Hence the following order is passed :- O R D E R (i) The order dated 30th November 2021 passed by the Court of CJJD, Vita in Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2017 is set aside. (ii) The application filed by the defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav in that Suit thereby praying for examination of the Agreement to Sale through an expert is allowed. (iii) The defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav is at liberty to suggest the name of the expert and the trial Court, after hearing both the sides, fix the name of expert. The charges will be born by the defendant No.5 – Savitri Jadhav. (iv) The petitioner/ defendant No.5 is at liberty to produce documents having her admitted thumb impressions for the purpose of comparison. The trial Court to pass necessary directions. (v) The appointed expert is at liberty to go through the Agreement to Sale by visiting the Court after taking permission of the Court. (vi) The trial Court to pass necessary directions to the expert about examination. (vii) If there is an issue about the procedure and the findings by the expert, both the parties are at liberty to agitate their grievances before the trial Court and not before this Court. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Writ Petition is allowed. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 25: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ] Age - 64 years, Occu Household, ] R/o. Village Dahivadi, Tal. Tasgaon, ] District – Sangli. ]… Petitioner Versus 1. Subhash Namdev Shinde, Age – 54 years, Occu Agriculture, R/o. Village Lengare, Tal. Khanapur, Dist. Sangli ] ] ] ] 2. Dilip Sadashiv Shinde Age – 57 years, Occu Agriculture ] ] ] 3. Sitaram Sadashiv Shinde Age - 49 years, Occu Agriculture ] ] ] ] 4. Yesabai Sadashiv Shinde Age – 59 years, Occu Household and Agril. ] ] ] 5. Bhagirathi Prakash Yadav Age – 59 years, Occu Household and Agril. No2 to 5 R/o. Village Lingare, Tal. Khanapur Dist. Sangli. ] ] ] ]… Respondents ***** Mr. Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar a/w. Mr. Dhananjay A. Utture :- Advocates for Petitioner. Mr. Amol Suryawanshi a/w. Mr. Ganesh Desai :- Advocates for Respondent No.1. **** CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J. DATE : $17^{th}$ DECEMBER 2024 ORAL ORDER :- Heard learned Advocate Mr.Arjunwadkar for petitioner/ defendant No.5 and learned Advocate Mr.Suryawanshi for respondent No.1/ plaintiff. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. The only issue arisen in this petition is whether " the present petitioner is having right to insist for examination of her alleged thump impression on the agreement for sale which is registered on 19 th April 2001" (page No.18). She has expressed her desire vide application dated 11 th November 2019 (page No.54) which was rejected by the trial Court as per the order dated 13 th November 2024. It is by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vita. The said order is challenged by the defendant No.5 by way of this Petition. Background facts There are two Suits filed by the parties against each other. The details are as follows :- (i) Regular Civil Suit No.329 of 2012 filed by the present petitioner against in all 6 defendants. Present respondent No.1 is defendant No.1 therein. Following are the reliefs sought :- (a) It be declared that the agreement for sale dated 19th April 2001 executed by the defendants No.2 to 6 (as vendors) in favour of defendant No.1 as a purchaser is not binding on the plaintiff. (b) There are ancillary reliefs. The material averments find place in paragraph No.4 of the plaint. The plaintiff - Savitri has averred that she has never executed an agreement for sale dated 19th April 2001. (ii) There is Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2012 filed by one Subhash/ respondent No.1 against in all six defendants. The present petitioner - Savitri is defendant No.5. The plaintiff has sought for specific performance of registered agreement for sale dated 19th April 2001 and for other ancillary reliefs. The trial Court has framed issues in both the Suits and the respective plaintiffs have started with their evidence also. So in a Suit filed by plaintiff - Savitri she is seeking declaration and whereas in a Suit filed by the plaintiff – Subhash, he is seeking specific performance. Both of them wants to refer the agreement for sale from a different perspective. The trial Court rejected the application for following reasons :- (a) The disputed agreement for sale was produced on record on dated 11th December 2012. The defendant No.5 was aware of existence of that instrument. (b) The plaintiff Subhash has filed his evidence affidavit on 18th January 2016 and he was also cross-examined by defendant No.5 – Savitri on 15th October 2019. (c) The defendant No.5 was having ample opportunities from the time of filing of Written Statement till filing of evidence affidavit by the plaintiff. However, she has not raised any objection for long time and only after cross-examination she has filed present application. (d) The defendant No.5 can prove her pleadings by other options. (e) Once the terms of agreement are reduced into writing, no other evidence can be adduced to disprove contents of the instrument. The only exception is provided in proviso 1 to 5 to Section 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Evidence Act). (f) The burden lies on the plaintiff to prove that the defendants have executed an agreement for sale. Submissions 1 WP 3091 of 2023.doc According to learned Advocate Mr. Arjunwadkar, the evidence of an expert is relevant as per Section 45 of the Evidence Act. He tried to submit that the provisions of proviso to Section 92 of the Evidence Act are not relevant. Even he tried to contend that burden to prove nonexecution by the defendant No.5 lies on the plaintiff – Subhash. Whereas learned advocate for respondent No.1 supported the order and submitted that the agreement for sale is a registered document. It has got more evidentiary value than an unregistered agreement for sale. According to Mr. Arjunwadkar, agreement for sale is not compulsorily registrable as per the Indian Registration Act 1908 (Registration Act). This Court feels the reasoning given by the trial Court are erroneous. This Court is inclined to set aside the said order for following reasons :- (i) The trial Court has overlooked the fact of filing of the Suit by the petitioner - Savitri challenging the agreement for sale and it is pending. She has denied execution of said agreement. (ii) At two places she has clarified her stand :- (a) by making necessary averments in her plaint (b) by making necessary averments in the Written Statement filed to the Suit filed by Subhash. (iii) As per procedure followed for trial of the Suit, the stage of recording of evidence comes at a later stage. First the pleadings are to be completed. (iv) The petitioner Savitri is aware about the burden which lies on her shoulder. She is not only the defendant but she is plaintiff also. The copies of the issues framed in both the Suits are not made available. But if we go by law of pleadings and the provisions of Evidence Act, the burden generally lies on a party who pleads a particular fact. In a Suit filed by the plaintiff – Savitri she has averred that she has not executed the agreement for sale. Naturally the burden will lie on her. Merely because the plaintiff – Subhash has also sought for specific performance of that agreement, it does not mean that the plaintiff – Savitri is relived from proving said fact because by asking the plaintiff – Subhash to discharge the burden through execution, she is not going to be benefited. She has to stand on her own foots. (v) Both the Suits are at the stage of recording of evidence. No doubt the application for examination was filed in a Suit in which she is a defendant. In fact in her Suit there is burden on her to prove non-execution. (vi) It is true as per the Evidence Act when there is a documentary evidence the original has to be produced. It is also principle of Evidence Act if a party wants to believe the Court about the document, there can be no evidence other than the document itself. It is also principle of Evidence Act that party cannot adduce oral evidence to prove contrary to contents of document. There are only certain exceptions. One of the exception is "when the party is disputing the execution of that document". So that is how the proviso (1) to Section 92 of Evidence Act comes into picture. The fact may be proved which will invalidate the document. In this case there is a challenge to execution of the document. For all above reasons the trial Court has committed an error in rejecting the application. It has to be allowed. Hence the following order is passed :- O R D E R (i) The order dated 30th November 2021 passed by the Court of CJJD, Vita in Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2012 is set aside. (ii) The application filed by the defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav in that Suit thereby praying for examination of the Agreement to Sale through an expert is allowed. (iii) The defendant No.5 Savitri Jadhav is at liberty to suggest the name of the expert and the trial Court, after hearing both the sides, fix the name of expert. The charges will be born by the defendant No.5 – Savitri Jadhav. (iv) The petitioner/ defendant No.5 is at liberty to produce documents having her admitted thumb impressions for the purpose of comparison. The trial Court to pass necessary directions. (v) The appointed expert is at liberty to go through the Agreement to Sale by visiting the Court after taking permission of the Court. (vi) The trial Court to pass necessary directions to the expert about examination. (vii) If there is an issue about the procedure and the findings by the expert, both the parties are at liberty to agitate their grievances before the trial Court and not before this Court. The Rule is made absolute in the above terms. Writ Petition is allowed. [S. M. MODAK, J.]

Order - Status 26: WP-3091-2023.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3091 OF 2023 Savitri Shekuram Jadhav ...Petitioner SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Versus Subhash Namdev Shinde and Ors. ...Respondents Digitally signed by SATISH RAMCHANDRA SANGAR Date: 2025.03.12 10:38:23 +0530 ***** Mr.Dhananjay A. Utture a/w Mr.Raj S. Satam i/b. Mr.Prajakt M. Arjunwadkar – Advocates for Petitioner. Mr.Ganesh Y. Desai – Advocate for Respondents. ***** CORAM : S.M.MODAK, J. DATE : 11 th MARCH 2025 P.C. : Matter is taken on board by way of praecipe moved on behalf of the learned Advocate for the Petitioner for speaking to the minutes of the order dated 17th December 2024. In clause No.(i) of the operative order, it is wrongly typed as "Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2017". The same be corrected as "Regular Civil Suit No.346 of 2012". Modified order be uploaded accordingly. (S.M.MODAK, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2025 Shrikant Basanna Khanapure …Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra Respondent. WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO.131 OF 2025 Zakirhussain Allabaksha Naikwadi Applicant V/s. The State of Maharashtra Respondent. Mr. Jaydeep Mane for the Applicant. Mr. Tanveer Khan, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 21.01.2025. P.C. : The applicants namely (1). Shrikant Khanapure and (2). Zakirhussain Allabaksha Naikwadi were working as Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer with Solapur Municipal Corporation respectively. The allegations against them are that they had unauthorizedly issued about 18 building permits. It appears that the corporation had already conducted departmental enquiry against them and imposed certain punishment. According to the applicants as the applications were made during their tenure, they were asked to issue the building permits in question. Learned APP submits that the applicants be directed to attend the concerned police station to verify their claim. The applicants shall attend the concerned police station from 27.01.2025 to 30.01.2025 between 11.00 am to 2.00 pm and shall cooperate in the investigation. List the applications on 06.02.2025. Till next date, the applicants shall not be arrested. [N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 274 OF 2025 Shivshankar Balwant Ghate Versus Applicant The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 131 OF 2025 Zakirhussain Allabaksha Naikwadi Versus Applicant The State of Maharashtra Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 132 OF 2025 Anand Vasant Kshirsagar Applicant Versus The State Of Maharashtra Respondent WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 2025 Shrikant Basanna Khanapure Applicant Versus The State of Maharashtra Respondent …. Mr. Amol Hunge, Advocate for the Applicant in ABA 274/2025. …. Mr. J.D. Mane, Advocate for the Applicant in ABA 131/2025. Mrs. G. P. Mulekar, A.P.P. for the Respondent – State. CORAM : N. R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 06th February, 2025. P.C. : Registry to verify and place the matter before the appropriate Bench. Ad-interim relief, if any granted earlier shall continue to operate till the next date. (N. R. BORKAR, J.)

Order - Status 11: 2025:BHC-AS:7048 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 274/2025 SHIVSHANKAR BALWANT GHATE APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 131/2025 ZAKIRHUSSAIN ALLABAKSHA NAIKWADI ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 132/2025 ANAND VASANT KSHIRSAGAR ..APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..RESPONDENT WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143/2025 SHRIKANT BASANNA KHANAPURE APPLICANT VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA RESPONDENT Mr. Kishor Ajetrao a/w. Adv. Amol Hunge (through VC) for the applicant in ABA/274/2025. Mr. Jaydeep Mane for the applicants in ABA – 131/2025, 132/2025, 143/2025. Mr. Nitin B. Patil, APP for the State in all ABAs. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 12, 2025. P.C. : ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 274/2025:- 1. After the matter was argued for some time, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant seeks leave to withdraw this application. 2. The application is disposed of as withdrawn. ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 131/2025 W ITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 132/2025 WITH ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION NO. 143/2025 :- 3. These applications are filed for seeking pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in connection with the First Information Report (FIR) No. 627/2024 registered with the Sadar Bazaar Police Station, Solapur City, Solapur, for the offence punishable under Sections 408, 419, 420, 466, 468, 469, 471, 473, 476 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 8 and 9 of the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005. 4. It is the case of the applicants that the only allegation against them is that they have accepted off-line proposals for sanctioning when the Corporation had started the process of accepting only online proposal. It is submitted that either the proposals were before the datum line 1/1/2022 and as there was a G.R. of the Government all proposals could have been even accepted offline. It is submitted 2 that three applicants were compulsorily made to retire by the Corporation. There is a delay in lodging the FIR. Apart from the applicants, there were other employees of the Corporation who were similarly placed like the present applicants viz. Lokhande, Tavagonde and others against whom the Corporation has not taken any action. Even though the three applicants were made to compulsory retire, their retirement benefits have not been entirely paid as of date. The applicant Shrikant Khanapure worked in the Building Proposal Department from 1/1/2015 to 27/6/2022. The applicant Anand Kshirsagar worked in the Department from 2017 up till now. Ghate worked from 1/12/2020 to 27/9/2022. The applicant Zakirhussain Naikwadi worked in the Town Planning Department from 1/12/2020 to 16/5/2022. 5. Ultimately, the Corporation has found them guilty, as regards the irregularities. Without admitting and for the sake of argument, if it is considered to be true even then these are mere irregularities which can be always regularized. The applicants have already been fined by the Corporation for a sum of Rs.1 lakh each, therefore, further punishment is not required. 6. The learned APP on behalf of the State submitted that a total cheating as of now appears to be more than Rs.2,10,00,000/-. The statements have been recorded as of now for 39 proposals. The cheating is likely to be played in many more such proposals. The statements of 16 persons have already been recorded, they are employees of the Corporation and also private engineers who have filed complaint against the present applicants on behalf of the parties who have applied for seeking permission for construction. Therefore, the present anticipatory bail application should be rejected as the custody of the present applicants would be required in order to find out how such proposals up till now have been illegally sanctioned by the present applicants. 7. All the three applicants are the employees of the Corporation working in Town Planning/Building Proposal Department of the Corporation and are directly entrusted with the work of sanctioning development permission. Out of four accused persons, three are the engineers working in Town Planning/Building Proposal Department and the applicant Anand Kshirsagar is a clerk working in the Town Planning Department. The three engineers are no more working with the Corporation as there was the Departmental Enquiry against them where they were found guilty and they have voluntarily retired from the Corporation. 4 8. The allegations made by the informant (the Commissioner of the Corporation) is that in around 96 proposals, the present applicants have committed irregularities and have sanctioned the proposals, (a) granting more FSI than permissible limits; (b) Considering the off line proposals, when as per new rules of proposals were to be made online; (c) not informing the Tax Department of the Corporation about sanctioning of the proposals, hence, the Corporation suffered losses. 9. The applicant Ghate and the applicant Shrikant Kharapure were the Junior Engineers who were supposed to be on the field and after inspection to make recommendation for sanctioning the files for development. The applicant Zakirhussain Naikwadi was the Assistant Engineer who used to sign after the Junior Engineer had cleared the file. The applicant Anand Kshirsagar was a clerk who used to purposely with intention to play fraud keep blanks in the register of the Corporation. The applicant Ghate has chosen to withdraw his anticipatory bail application. 10. The learned APP has submitted that the fraud/cheating as of today is amounting to Rs.2,20,00,000/-. The statements of 16 5 witnesses have already been recorded who are the employees of the Corporation and Engineers of various private parties who had applied for sanction of their proposal for development. All of them have pointed fingers towards the present applicants. In the Departmental Enquiry, the applicants have been found guilty and they have been imposed fine of Rs.1,00,000/- each. The outward register file has been destroyed by the applicants as informed by the staff. The investigating officer has been investigating the matter and up till now they have recorded the statements for 39 proposals and many such proposals according to the learned APP are likely to come forward where fraud has been committed by the present applicants. 11. The Supreme Court in case of Sumitha Pradeep vs. Arun Kumar C.K. and another 1 in paragraph 12 has held as under :- "……….. In many anticipatory bail matters, we have noticed one common argument being canvassed that no custodial interrogation is required and, therefore, anticipatory bail may be granted. There appears to be a serious misconception of law that if no case for custodial interrogation is made out by the prosecution, then that alone would be a good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Custodial interrogation can be one of the relevant aspects to be considered along with other grounds while deciding an application seeking anticipatory bail. There may be many cases in which the custodial interrogation of the accused may not be required, but that does not mean that the prima facie case against the accused should be ignored or overlooked and he should be granted anticipatory bail. The first and foremost thing that the court hearing an anticipatory bail application should consider is the prima facie case put up 1 (2022) 17 SCC 391 against the accused. Thereafter, the nature of the offence should be looked into along with the severity of the punishment. Custodial interrogation can be one of the grounds to decline anticipatory bail. However, even if custodial interrogation is not required or necessitated, by itself, cannot be a ground to grant anticipatory bail." (Emphasis supplied) 12. Therefore, it is not necessary that in every case just because the custody is not necessary, the anticipatory bail application should be allowed. 13. In the present matter, taking into consideration the role played by all the three applicants whereby a grave loss has been incurred by the Corporation as the FSI has been increased by the present applicants, even when they were not holding their posts in the Town Planning/Building Proposal Department proves that they had intention to play fraud on the Corporation. The Corporation has lost a big revenue by the fraud played by all the four applicants. In further enquiry if it is found that there is violation of FSI condition, all the proposals would be rejected which will further cause loss to the parties whose files have been illegally cleared by the applicants. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the present anticipatory bail applications. The same are rejected and disposed of accordingly. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2014 [Shripal J. Patil & Anr. vs. Sheetalnath Paygonda Patil & Ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders. or directions & Registrar's orders. Mr. Manoj A. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, AGP for Respondent No. 3 to 5. Coram : RANJIT MORE, J. Date : January 29, 2014. P. C. : Issue notice before admission returnable on 26th February 2014. In addition to Court notice, advocate for the Petitioner shall serve the respondents by private notice either by hand delivery or through RPAD/Speed Post/Courier and file an affidavit of service before the returnable date. [RANJIT MORE,J.]

Order - Status 8: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 26 February 2014 Issue notice to Respondent Nos. 1 to 19 returnable within eight weeks from today. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 26/02/2014

Order - Status 10: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- None present. CORAM : SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 23 April 2014 Await service to Respondent Nos. 7 and 9 with reminder to concerned Court. S.O. for nine weeks. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 23/04/2014

Order - Status 12: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 25 June 2014 Await reply to the reminder from concerned Court about service to Respondent Nos. 7 & 9 and in addition make telephonic contact. S.O. for four weeks. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 25/06/2014

Order - Status 14: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 23JULY 2014 Reissue notice to Respondent No. 9 on same address returnable within ten weeks from today. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 23/07/2014

Order - Status 16: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : SHRIKANT D.KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 01 OCTOBER 2014 Await service to Respondent No.9 for five weeks. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 01/10/2014

Order - Status 18: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Court's or Judge's orders Registrar's orders None present. CORAM : SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) Date : 05 November 2014 Await service to Respondent No.9 with reminder to the concerned Court and in addition make telephonic contact. S.O. for five weeks. REGISTRAR (JUDL.I) RJ -I aap/mvm 05/11/2014

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 712 OF 2014 Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders. Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Mr. Manoj A. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. S. D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. for respondents no. 3 to 5. CORAM: R.G.KETKAR, J. DATE : 30/07/2015 PC: Not on Board. At the request of Mr. Patil, taken up in production board. Heard Mr. Manoj Patil, learned counsel for the Petitioners. By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, original defendants no.12 and 13 have challenged the Judgment and order dated 7.11.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Dn., Jaysingpur below Exh.34 in Regular Civil Suit No.269 of 2012. By that order, the learned trial Judge rejected the application made by these defendants for setting aside 'No W. S.' order after 2/2 WP/712/2014 condoning delay of 3 days in filing the application. By order dated 29.1.2014 notice was issued to the respondents. Mr. Patil submit that all the respondents are duly served and to that effect he has filed affidavit of service. Having regard to the controversy raised in the petition, issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 20/8/2015. Mr. Rayrikar waives service for respondents no. 3 to 5. Parties are put to notice that subject to time constraint and the convenience of the Court, Petition may be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Notice shall further indicate that despite service if the respondents fail to appear, Court will proceed to decide the petition on its own merits. In the meantime, there shall be adinterim order in terms of prayer clause (c). (R.G.KETKAR, J.)

Order - Status 27: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.712 OF 2014 Shripal Jingonda Patil and anr. : Petitioners. Versus Sheetalnath Paygonda Patil and ors. : Respondents. Mr. Manoj A Patil for the Petitioners. Mr. A R Metkari AGP for the Respondent Nos.3 to 5. CORAM : R. M. SAVANT, J. DATE : 21st August 2015 P.C. 1 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of the above Writ Petition. The above Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. [R.M.SAVANT, J]

Order - Status 9: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 7: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1832 OF 2017 IN REJECTED CASE NO.16 OF 2018 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders None Present. CORAM : V.R. KACHARE REGISTRAR (JUDL – II) Date : 27th August, 2018 In view of the dismissal of First Appeal Stamp No.13947/2017 vide Court's order dated 27/07/2017, this Civil Application for stay does not survive. sd/­ Registrar (Judl.­II) dsm – R(J­II) – 27.08.18

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI. WRIT PETITION NO. 1651 OF 2009 Javed Nihal Ahmad Nihal Ansari ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra ...Respondent Through jail Mr. Rajesh More, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2009 P.C. : The Jail Superintendent shall file his affidavit personally by next Monday. List on 12th October, 2009. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.R. JOSHI, J.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1651 OF 2009 Javed Nihal Ahmad Nihal Ansari .... Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .... Respondent Through Jail Shri Rajesh More, APP, for the State. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED: OCTOBER 12, 2009 P.C: It appears that the petitioner was punished when he was lodged in the Thane Jail. Now the petitioner is lodged in Nashik Road Central Prison. Let an affidavit be filed by the Superintendent of the Thane Jail disclosing the details of the work allotted to the petitioner which he allegedly refused to do. S.O. to 9-11-2009. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE 1 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1651 OF 2009 Javed Nihal Ahmad Nihal Ansari .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. November 09, 2009. P.C. This petition was received through Jail and challenges the order dated 7/1/2008 passed by the Superintendent of Central Prison at Thane, thereby removing the name of the petitioner from the remission register for one year. The petitioner himself has admitted that he was called upon to join the work allotted to him in the Jail premises and he made representation to the effect that he should be given a suitable work in view of his qualifications. He claims that he has passed B.Com. and, therefore, the work allotted to him in the factory was not suitable to him. It is his case that though he was called upon to work in the factory section, he was not informed as to which section and what kind of work he was required to do. Show cause notice was issued to him on 8/11/2007 and he had submitted his reply. On 7/1/2008 the impugned order was passed and the same has been approved by the learned District and Sessions Judge. We have perused the affidavits filed by Smt. Swati Madhav Sathe, Superintendent of Nasik Central Prison, as at present and the affidavit filed by Shri Yogesh Desai, who is presently the Superintendent of Central Prison at Thane and as per the said affidavit the petitioner was allotted work in the factory section on 20/8/2007 and he ought to have reported there. Instead, he did not report to the factory section where there are number of trades i.e. carpentry, power looms, stitching, bakery etc. and this was refused by the petitioner. We do not see any procedural error in passing the impugned order and in any case we are informed that the petitioner is likely to be released towards the end of December, 2009. No case is made out to cause interference in the order passed by the Superintendent, Central Prison at Thane and hence the petition is rejected. This order be communicated to the petitioner in the concerned jail. (R.Y. GANOO,J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE,J.)

Order - Status 5: 25.7566.22-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7566 OF 2022 Shri Rahul Baburao Navsagare ….. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Sandeep Dere for the Petitioner Mr.P.P.Kakade, G.P. a/w Mr.S.B.Kalel, A.G.P. for the State CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATED : JUNE 30, 2022 P.C. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned G.P. submits that the authority has now taken up the documents and would pass the orders on it. It appears that subsequently, directions have been issued by respondent no.3 for the acceptance of the documents and if the documents confirm to the provision of the the Registration Act, may register it. Naturally, the respondents would pass orders with regard to the registration of the documents or otherwise, on its own merits. TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA Date: 2022.07.04 11:15:13 +0530 25.7566.22-wp.docx Writ Petitions is disposed of. (S. M. MODAK,J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....Petitioner V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....Respondent None For Petitioner CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J DATE : 28th August, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 11/09/2019 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents ---------- None for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER 2019. P.C. : The respondent's counsel informs the Court that the petitioner has filed this writ petition to avoid the execution proceedings, but has not been prosecuting it. According to him, on the last occasion, too, none represented the petitioner. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner has, so far, not served the case papers on him. Post the matter on 20th September 2019 under the caption for "dismissal". [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena vs. Petitioner. Ms. Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 18th September, 2019 PC : Petitioner's counsel seeks time. Post the matter on 25.9.2019. ( DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.)

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents Ms.Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 25th SEPTEMBER 2019. P.C. : Shri Brijesh Shukla waives notice and informs the Court that he is appearing for the respondents. The petitioner's counsel assures the Court that she will serve the case papers on the respondents' counsel forthwith. Post the matter on 10th October 2019. [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.] Vina A. Khadpe Digitally signed by Vina A. Khadpe Date: 2019.09.26 17:15:04 +0530

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gauraqv Saxena …Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. …Respondents ---------- Mr.Samji Joseph i/b. Ms.Manisha Prajapati for the petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla a/w Ms.Devika Mehra for the respondents. CORAM : DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J. DATE : 10th OCTOBER 2019. P.C. : The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court. Vina A. Khadpe Digitally signed by Vina A. Khadpe Date: 2019.10.11 21:04:14 +0530 [DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.]

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena …..Petitioner. Vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. …..Respondents. Mr. Siraj Khan i/by M. B. Prajapati for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla a/w Devika Mehra for the Respondents. CORAM : A. S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 11th NOVEMBER, 2019. P.C.:- It is submitted that, the Advocate on record for the Petitioner is in personal difficulty and is unable to attend the Court today. 2 At his request of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, stand over to 20th December, 2019. (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....Petitioner V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....Respondent Adv. Ramji Kotali For Petitioner Adv.Brijesh Shukla Res 1 For Respondent CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J DATE : 20th December, 2019 P.C. : Stand over to 07/02/2020 ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 20: 54-wp-14372-2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ••• Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ••• Respondents Mr.Sudhir V. Sadavarte i/b. Manisha Prajapati for Petitioner. Mr.Vaibhav R. Gargade for Respondent No.1. Ms.V.S. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM : A.S. GADKARI, J. DATE : 7 th February 2020. P.C. : 1] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in pursuance of Order dated 10 th October 2019, the petitioner has deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in the Registry of this Court. 2] The issue involved in the present Petition is with respect to the quantum of compensation to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents-landlord pertaining to a period of 12 months as per Order dated 11 th April 2017. 3] In view thereof, Admit. 4] Ad-interim relief, granted by Order dated 10 th October 2019, is confirmed as interim relief. [A.S. GADKARI, J.]

Order - Status 21: TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Digitally signed by TAUSEEF LAIQUEE FAROOQUI Date: 2023.03.13 11:02:46 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. … Respondents ***** None for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla for Respondent No.1. Mrs. V. s. Nimbalkar, AGP for Respondent (State). ***** CORAM : S.G. DIGE, J. DATED : 8 MARCH, 2023 P.C.: None present for the Petitioner. Heard learned counsel for Respondent No.1, stand over to 12 April 2023. (S.G. DIGE, J.)

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT None for Petitioner Mr. S. V. Sadavarte i/by Brijesh Shukla for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHIVKUMAR DIGE J DATE : 12th April, 2023 P.C. : None present for the petitioner/s, stand over to 14/06/2023. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 26: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ...PETITIONER V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and Ors ...RESPONDENTS Mr. Rushikesh Patil i/b Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 14th JUNE, 2023 P.C. : Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.) KSG 1/1

Order - Status 28: WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner Vs. Umesh Chandra Tiwari and ors. … Respondents ------- Mr.Saurabh M. Railkar h/f Mr.S.V.Sadavarte i/by Ms.Manisha B. Prajapati, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J. DATE : 28 JUNE, 2023. P.C. : On 14th June, 2023, the following order was passed:- "1. Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord." Today this court is informed that Mr.Sadavarte has filed a leave note. On the last occasion, the learned counsel for the Petitioner was to take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord. Let instructions with respect to the payment plan be taken by the next date. List on 19th July, 2023. It is made clear that if instructions are not obtained by the next date, this court will proceed to pass appropriate orders. (ABHAY AHUJA, J.)

Order - Status 30: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION STAMP NO. 18038 OF 2023 In Writ Petition 14372 OF 2018 Umesh Chandra Tiwari ....PETITIONER V/S Gaurav Saxena ....RESPONDENT None for Petitioner Mr Brijesh Shukla Advocate for Respondent No. 1. [ MENTIONED AT 5.15 P.M. ] CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA J DATE : 19th July, 2023 P.C. : Mentioned out of turn. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Respondent, stand over to 21/08/2023. Ad-interim relief, if any, to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 31: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.01.11 16:09:58 Digitally +0530 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.14387 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Umesh C. Tiwari ...Applicant IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Gaurav Saxena ...Petitioner V/s. Umesh C. Tiwari & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Brijesh Shukla with Ms.Siddhi Mahambre and Mr.Harshil Gandhi for the Applicant. Mr.Sudhir Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr.P.P. Pujari, AGP for the State - Respondent. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 9 TH JANUARY , 2024. P.C. :- This Interim Application is filed by the Original lessor. This Interim Application seeks withdrawal of the amount of Rs.2,25,000/- deposited by the lessee (Petitioner) pursuant to vai the directions given by this Court on 10 October 2019. For ease of reference, the order dated 10 October 2019 is reproduced herein below :- "1. The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court." According to the Respondent (lessor) as per the impugned order, the amount payable by the lessee till the date of handing over possession i.e. 25 May 2019, would be Rs.5,23,600/-. Mr.Shukla, advocate appearing for the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) submits that however on 10 October 2019, as the sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was admitted by the Petitioner, the Writ Petition was admitted. Mr.Shukla further submits that in such a situation, if the amount less than 50% is deposited in this Court, the Respondent / lessor should be allowed to withdraw the said amount with accrued interest. After hearing both the sides, I am of the view that suffice will be the purpose if the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) is allowed to withdraw the said sum of Rs.2,25,000/ deposited in this Court along with accrued interest thereon. Before withdrawal of the said amount, the Applicant (Umesh Chandra Tiwari) should file an undertaking before this Court within a period of one week from today that in case after hearing the Writ Petition, the Writ Petition is answered against the Applicant Umesh Chandra Tiwari), the Applicant will comply with the directions given by this Court. The Interim Application is accordingly disposed of. 7. All parties to act on the authenticated copy of this order. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 Both the parties agree that the Writ Petition can be disposed of, since small issue is involved in this matter. 3/4 Place the Writ Petition on board for hearing and final disposal on 8 February 2024, at 2:30 p.m. The parties agree to file a compilation of documents, short synopsis along with their preposition of law and authorities relied upon by them before the next date of hearing. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 33: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.14372 OF 2018 ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Gaurav Saxena … Petitioner V/s. Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors … Respondents Mr. Saurabh R h/f Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte, Advocate for the Petitioner. Adv. Bijesh Shukla a/w Mr. Harshil Gandhi & Ms. Siddhi Mahambre, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri. P. P. Pujari – AGP for Respondent-State Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J . DATED : 8 FEBRUARY 2024 P.C.: This Writ Petition is filed by licensee challenging the impugned Judgment and Order dated 11 April 2017 and as confirmed by Judgment and Order dated 19 June 2018. Mr. Shukla appearing for the Respondent No.1 submits that the possession of the suit premises has been already received by them. He submits that the only dispute is now regarding the payment of compensation to be made by the petitioner. He further points out to Order dated 14 June 2023 passed by this Court. On 14 June, 2023 there was a request made by the advocate appearing for the Petitioner seeking time so that he will furnish a "Payment Plan" with regard to the outstanding payment to be made to Respondent / Landlord. Mr. Shukla submits that from 14 June 2023 till today, the said so called payment plan has not been furnished by the Petitioner. Mr. Saurabh appearing for the Petitioner seeks a short accommodation on the ground that the advocate appearing for the Petitioner due to personal reasons is not present in this Court. As a matter of last chance, stand over to 13 February 2024. To be listed "High On Board". (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 36: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2024.02.17 11:50:13 +0530 Writ Petition NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ..Petitioner Versus Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Sudhir Sadavarte for the Petitioner. Mr.Brijesh Shukla with Adv.Siddhi Mahambre for Respondent No.1. Ms.Kajle, AGP for the State - Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATE : 13 TH FEBRUARY , 2024. P.C. :- This Writ Petition is filed as regards quantum of damages payable by the Petitioner to the Respondents, since the possession of the suit premises has already been hand over. Mr.Shukla appearing for Respondent No.1 / Owner submits that as per his calculation the amount as of today payable would be Rs.2,98,600/-. vai Mr.Sadavarte appearing for the Petitioner disputes the said figure payable. Mr.Sadavarte submits that the total outstanding amount is Rs.4,86,000/-. However, a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- was deposited in this Court and by an order of this Court, Respondent No.1 has already withdrawn the said amount. Therefore, the amount now payable by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 according to him would be Rs.2,61,200/-. Be that as it may, in the present Writ Petition on 10 October 2019 an order was passed. The said order dated 10 October 2019 reads as under :- "The petitioner's counsel fairly submits that there is a dispute about the quantum of damages/rent due from the petitioner to the respondents-landlord. He submits that the admitted amount comes to Rs.2,25,000/-. Status quo in relation to the recovery of rent/damages shall be maintained subject to the petitioner's depositing Rs.2,25,000/-, the admitted amount, with the Registry in 4 weeks. If petitioner fails to deposit the amount in 4 weeks, the stay stands vacated without further reference to this Court." Thereafter on 7 February 2020, this Court recorded that a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- had been deposited by the Petitioner with the Registrar of this Court. Therefore, the Writ Petition was "Admitted" and ad-interim relief granted on 10 October 2019 was confirmed. The said order dated 7 February 2020 reads as under :- "1] Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in pursuance of Order dated 10th October 2019, the petitioner has deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in the Registry of this Court. 2] The issue involved in the present Petition is with respect to the quantum of compensation to be paid by the petitioner to the respondents-landlord pertaining to a period of 12 months as per Order dated 11th April 2017. 3] In view thereof, Admit. 4] Ad-interim relief, granted by Order dated 10th October 2019, is confirmed as interim relief." Mr.Sadavarte submits that thereafter the matter came up before this Court on 14 June 2023 when the colleague of Mr.Sadavarte sought time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner. He submitted that on 14 June 2023, Vakalatnama to appear on behalf of the Petitioner was not there. Therefore, the said statement was made on behalf of the Petitioner. On 14 June 2023, this Court granted two weeks time to Mr.Sadavarte to file the Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner. So also it was recorded that the advocate appearing for the Petitioner to take instructions about payment plan as regards outstanding payment to be made. The said order dated 14 June 2023 reads as under :- "1. Mr. Rushikesh Patil holding for Mr. S.V. Sadavarte, submits that Mr. Sadavarte will be filing Vakaltnama on behalf of the petitioner and some time may be granted. At his request, list on 28th June, 2023. In the meanwhile, let the Counsel for the petitioner take instructions on the payment plan for the outstanding payments to be made to the landlord." Mr.Sadavarte submits that the Petitioner had challenged the quantum of amount payable as the rent to Respondent No.1 / Landlord and whatsoever was admitted amount by the Petitioner was already deposited as per the directions of the Court on 10 October 2019, and the said amount has been withdrawn by Respondent No.1 pursuant to the order dated 9 January 2024 passed in Civil Writ Petition No.14387 of Mr.Sadavarte submits that since he could not appear on 14 June 2023, his colleague had appeared in the matter only for seeking two weeks time to file Vakalatnama on behalf of the Petitioner, no statement could be made as regards payment plan towards the outstanding amount, as according to him as of that date, there was no outstanding amount payable as a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- admitted by them was already deposited. Thereafter the matter appeared on 28 June 2023, although Mr.Sadavarte had personal difficulty and he had filed the leave note, therefore, his colleague Mr. Railkar appeared on his behalf and sought time. According to Mr.Sadavarte, again on the said date, it was recorded that the Petitioner would be filing payment plan towards the outstanding amount. This Writ Petition involves only the dispute as to the quantum payable by the Petitioner to Respondent No.1 / Landlord. The Petitioner had admitted that only a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- is payable by Respondent No.1, however, Respondent No.1 has disputed this figure. The Petitioner has already deposited the said amount of Rs.2,25,000/- in this 5/6 Court. The said amount has been withdrawn by Respondent No.1. The Petition is already admitted by an order of this Court on 7 February 2020. The Writ Petition to come up on board for hearing and final disposal as per its turn. (RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

Order - Status 37: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 30th August, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 04/10/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 39: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 4th October, 2024 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 13/12/2024 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 41: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ....PETITIONER V/S Umesh Chandra Tiwari And Ors. ....RESPONDENT Mr. Sudhir Sadavarte for Petitioner Smt. Madhubala Kajale 'B' Panel for Respondent-State CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP V. MARNE J DATE : 13th December, 2024 P.C. : Stand Over to 16/12/2024. List the matter under the caption of For Circulation. Interim relief,if any,to continue till the next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 44: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14372 OF 2018 Gaurav Saxena ….Petitioner : Versus : Umesh Chandra Tiwari & Ors. ….Respondents None for the Petitioner. Mr. Brijesh Shukla, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3/State. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 16 DECEMBER 2024. _____________ _____________ P.C. : None appears on behalf of the Petitioner. It appears that the Petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting the petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Respondent No.1 would be at liberty to execute the order passed by the Competent Authority. [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2024.12.17 08:54:47 +0530