All Cases

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr Patil Pavan Suryaprakash Adv for Appellant Ms Sonali Jadhav, Adv for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI J DATE : 4th July, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 18/07/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr. PAVAN S. PATIL for Appellant. Ms. SONALI JADHAV for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 14th September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 21/09/2022 ( for directions). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT None for Appellant Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre a/w Sonali Jadhav for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 21st September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 23/09/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr. Pavan Patil for Appellant Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre i/b Sonali Jadhav for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 23rd September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/09/2022 ( for directions). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....APPELLANT V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 In Appeal from Order 668 OF 2022 Mr. Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe And Others ....PETITIONER V/S Mr. Sachin Sayajiraoi Palande And Another ....RESPONDENT Mr. Pavan Patil for Appellant Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre i/b Sonali Jadhav for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. S. KARNIK J DATE : 23rd September, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/09/2022 ( for directions). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 11: 5-AO-668-2022.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 668 OF 2022 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10116 OF 2022 Mr.Sandip Yashwant Kalokhe … Appellants/Applicants and Others Vs. Mr. Sachin Sayajirao Palance and … Respondents Another Mr. Shubham Saraf i/b. Mr. Pawan Patil for the Appellants/Applicants. Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre a/w. Ms. Sonali Jadhav and Mr. Sanket Patil for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE : 3 rd MARCH 2025 ORDER : This appeal is listed for extension of time. Time to dispose of the suit as per order dated 28th September 2022 is extended by eight months as prayed. [GAURI GODSE, J.]

Order - Status 4: 39.6391.23 wp.doc Iresh IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav LHR ….Petitioner of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav V/s. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav ….Respondents LHR of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and others Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. A. P. Vanarase, AGP for the State Ms. Priya Pandey a/w Jackie for Respondent No. 1 Mr. Ankit Dubey for Respondent No. 4 CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 19 th MAY, 2023. (VACATION COURT) P.C. :- This Petition is filed to challenge the order dated 3rd May 2023 passed in Appeal No. 283 of 2022. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner states that by the said order, the order of stay granted on 17th March 2023 has been vacated. He invited my attention to the order dated 17th March 2023, by which there was an order of statusquo granted. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 on instructions states that possession of the offending structure is already taken on 1st March 2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that such a statement was never made during the hearing before the concerned authority. In view of the rival contentions raised by all the parties, parties are directed to file their respective Affidavits placing on record the exact status of the offending structure. Since there was an order of status quo passed on 17th March 2023 in Appeal No. 283 of 2022, it will be in the interest of justice to direct Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that they will not create any third-party interest in the alternate structure as regards the offending structure till the next date. Respondents are at liberty to file their respective Affidavits within a period of three weeks. Rejoinder, if any, to be filed within a period of one week thereafter. Stand over to 16th June 2023. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 6: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 of 2023 Baban S. Jadhav LHR of Smt. Parvati S. Jadhav …Petitioner V/s. Sujata H. Jadhav LHR of Hiroji D. Jadhav and ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane for the Petitioner. CORAM : N.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 21.06.2023. P.C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on board. List on 5 July 2023. The interim order, if any, to continue till the next date. [N.R.BORKAR, J.]

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 … … Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav .. Petitioner v/s. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Jackie Jain, Advocate for Respondent no.1. 1/1 Mr. A.P. Vanarse, AGP for State. Mr. Ankit S. Dubey, Advocate for Respondent no.4. CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATED : JULY 21, 2023. P.C. : At the request of learned Counsel for Respondent no.1, stand over to August 2, 2023. Interim order to continue till then. NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.07.24 11:34:31 +0530 28-WP-6391-2023.doc Neeta Sawant

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav Lhr Of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lhr Of Hiroji Deu Jadhav And Ors ....RESPONDENT Adv.ABHIJEET P RANE for Petitioner Mr.A.P. Vanarase - AGP for State. CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 6th October, 2023 P.C. : At the request of the learned Counsel for the Appellant(s)/ Applicant(s) / Petitioner(s) / Respondent No. stand over to 13/10/2023. Ad-interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri. Baban Shankar Jadhav Lhr Of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ....PETITIONER V/S Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lhr Of Hiroji Deu Jadhav And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MADHAV J. JAMDAR J DATE : 13th October, 2023 P.C. : Due to paucity of time, stand over to 08/12/2023. Interim order, if any, to continue till then. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 15: 18-wp-6391-2023.doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 Shri Baban Shanakar Jadhav Lrs of Smt Parvati Shankar Jadhav … Petitioner vs. Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav Lrs of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and Ors … Respondents Mr. Abhijeet P. Rane a/w. Swarta Suryawanshi, for the Petitioner. Mr. Kanhaiya S. Yadav a/w. Mr. Ankit Dubey for Respondent no.4. Mr. Dilip Shukla a/w. Ms. Priya Pandey i/b. Jackie Jain for Respondent no.1. Mr. S.L. Babar, AGP for the State. CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 21 st FEBRUARY, 2024 P.C. :- Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to annex copy of Annexure-II on the basis of which petitioner claims that Parvatibai had right to get alternate premises. The petitioner to also annex copy of the appeal memo filed before the Competent Authority. Necessary amendment to be carried out within a period of two weeks from today. Stand over to 18th March 2024. The respondents are at liberty to file affidavit if necessary in response to the amendment. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATE: 18 th MARCH 2024 P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board stands adjourned as follows : Sr. Nos. Next Date 61 to 71 22nd April 2024 72 to 82 23rd April 2024 83 to 93 26th April 2024 94 to 106 29th April 2024 107 2nd April 2024 108 to 126, 128 to 136 3rd May 2024 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Iresh

Order - Status 19: common order.doc varsha IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J. DATED : 3rd MAY 2024 P.C. :- On account of paucity of time, following matters on Daily Board stands adjourned as follows : Sr. Nos. Next Date 77 to 91 23rd June 2024 92 to 112 1st July 2024 113 to 133 2nd July 2024 134 to 155 5th July 2024 If in any of the above matters, ad-interim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If ad-interim relief or interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (GAURI GODSE, J.)

Order - Status 22: 42wp6391-23 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2023 ————— Baban Shankar Jadhav LRs. of Smt. Parvati Shankar Jadhav ... Petitioner. Versus Mrs. Sujata Hiroji Jadhav LR.s of Hiroji Deu Jadhav and Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Abhijeet Rane, for the Petitioner. Mr.Jackie Jain, for Respondent No.1. Mr. Kanhaiya S. Yadav i/by Mr.Ankit s. Dubey, for the Respondent No.4. Ms. M.S.Bane, AGP for the Respondents-State. ————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 01, 2024 P. C. : 1. By this Petition, the challenge is to the order passed by the Grievance Redressal Committee dated 3rd May, 2023 in Appeal No.283 of 2022, challenging the order passed by the Additional Collector dated 15th October, 2022, by which the Application filed by the Petitioner seeking inclusion of his name in the Annexure-II came to be rejected. 2. By order dated 15th October, 2022, the Additional Collector noted that the name of the Respondent No.1 appears in Annexure-II at Serial No.128 and his name has also reflected in the voters list of 42wp6391-23 1995 for Ward No.427, at Serial No.597, T-1 and that on the basis of photo-pass which was issued, his illegibility has been determined. As regards the petitioner's mother, it was noted that the name of Petitioner's mother was included in the voters list for Ward No.427 at Serial No.599, T-2 and that both these structures appear to be different. The submissions which were advanced before the Additional Collector was that the Petitioner's mother was residing at Bandra and thereafter was allotted the hut at Kandivali where she was residing till 1997 and thereafter due to her old age, she started residing at her native place. It was contended before the Additional Collector that her brother started residing in the said hut without having any right to reside therein. It was further contended that the Respondent No.1 has also been issued the photo-pass in respect of the said hut and that on the basis of fraudulent documents, the Respondent No.1 has inserted his name in Annexure-II. 3. The Appellate Authority by the impugned order has dismissed the Appeal by upholding the findings of the Additional Collector that there are two different structures of the parties and that the delay has not been explained. The Appellate Authority further held that the Appellant has failed to produce any document on record to show that the Respondent No.1 by misleading the Authorities has inserted his 42wp6391-23 name in Annexure-II. 4. Mr. Rane, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the petitioner's mother was staying in Bandra at Zopdi No.REGE/Bandra/165. After the relocation to Kandivali, new Identity Card was issued having Serial No.84411. He submits that Identity Card No.0408308 was issued in name of petitioner's mother against Hut No.REGE/Bandra/165, C.S.No.163 (Part) Village Akorli. He would further submit that the Respondent No.1 had in fact, divided the hut into two different structures and had thereafter claimed right in respect of the part of the structure which was in his possession which is impermissible in law. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4-Developer submits that the entire scheme has been completed and the possession has already been handed over to the eligible slumdwellers. 6. Considered the submissions and perused the record. 7. Although the application which was made by the Petitioner was for deciding his eligibility and for inserting his name in Annexure-II, it appears that the submissions which were canvassed before the Collector was confined to the fraud which is alleged to have been committed by the Respondent No.1 by including his name in Annexure-II. The order of the Appellate Authority also indicates that the same submissions were advanced that the Respondent No.1 without any right in the property has started occupying the hut after the petitioner's mother in the year 1997 left the premises to reside at her native place. 8. Upon consideration of the material produced on record, the Additional Collector as well as the Appellate Authority has noted from the documents that the name of the Respondent No.1 is in respect of her different hut i.e. T-1 and in the voters list, the name of the Respondent No.1 appears in respect of Ward No.427 at Serial No.597 whereas the Petitioner's mother name appears in the voters list in the year 1995 in Ward No.427 at Serial No.599 in respect of T-2. Based on these documents both the authorities have held that there are two different structures. The submission which is now sought to be canvassed that the hut was divided by the Respondent No.1 into two different parts and thereafter separate record was prepared is not the case of the Petitioner either in the application or in the submissions canvassed before the Collector and the Appellate Authority. The application of the Petitioner pleads that in respect of the said hut, it is the Petitioner who has a right being the legal heir of the original occupant and the Respondent No.1 has prepared fraudulent document and has got himself declared eligible in Annexure-II. 9. Considering that the findings of the Additional Collector and the Appellate Authority is that there are two different structures of the Petitioner and the Respondent No.1, the Authorities were required to decide the eligibility of the Petitioner in respect of her own hut structure which does not appear to have been done. The Authorities appears to have considered the submissions advanced by the Petitioner qua the fraudulent manner in which the Respondent No.1 has inserted his name in place of the Petitioner's mother in respect of the said hut in Annexure-II. 10. Be that as it may. As both the authorities have held that there are two different structures, let an appropriate application be filed by the Petitioner before the Additional Collector within a period of four weeks. The application to be decided by the Collector on its own merits and in accordance with law. 11. As the proceedings are pending since 2013, the Additional Collector is requested to decide the same expeditiously and in any event within a period of three months from the receipt of the application. Writ Petition stands allowed in the above terms. 12. Needless to clarify that all contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

#VALUE!

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1991 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.208 OF 1998 Shri Narayan Tukaram Agre & Anr. .. Applicants. Vs. Shri Vinayak Narayan Naik & Ors. .. Respondents. Mrs.S.A.Mudbidri for the applicants. Mr.S.V.Dhakepalkar i/b P.K.Dhakepalkar for respondent no.1. Ms.Yasmin Desai for respondent nos.2, 2A to 2G. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 17TH AUGUST, 2006 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents. By this application, the applicants have prayed for restoration of possession of the suit premises which was obtained by the respondent-landlord on 3rd July, 2006. In the main writ petition, the interim relief was passed. However, the writ petition itself came to be dismissed for default on 22nd March, 2006 and then it was restored on file on 21st July, 2006. It appears that between 22nd March, 2006 and 21st July, 2006 the execution proceedings were prosecuted by the respondent-landlord and possession was restored on 3rd July, 2006. Mr.Dhakepalkar, learned counsel for the respondent-landlord submits that he shall not create third party right in respect of suit premises and shall keep it vacant till the disposal of writ petition. The statement is accepted. In view thereof the prayer in the instant application need not be considered at this stage. Civil application is, accordingly, disposed of. It is open for the applicant to collect her articles and belongings required by him which are still lying in the room without prejudice to the rights and contentions within two weeks from today after giving prior intimation to respondent no.1. Rest of the articles shall remain in the suit premises till the disposal of the writ petition. Respondent No.1 shall be entitled to take receipt of delivery of the articles and belongings whichever applicants choose to collect from the premises and shall not insist for any other writing from the applicants. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1991 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.208 OF 1998 Shri Narayan Tukaram Agre & Anr. .. Applicants. Vs. Shri Vinayak Narayan Naik & Ors. .. Respondents. Mrs.S.A.Mudbidri for the applicants. Mr.S.V.Dhakepalkar i/b P.K.Dhakepalkar for respondent no.1. Ms.Yasmin Desai for respondent nos.2, 2A to 2G. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2006 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the applicants and the respondents. In the order dated 17th August, 2006 wherever the words "respondent-landlord" appear it may be read as "respondent no.1" only. The order dated 17th August, 2006 stands modified to that extent. (D.B.Bhosale, 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.)