Tag: Ordinary Civil Others

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 26th August, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/10/2022 . 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 INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 3rd October, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 17/11/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 In Writ Petition 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Soc Sanpada Thr Abdul Samad Hasan Kazi ....PETITIONER V/S The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE JUSTICE KAMAL KHATA, JJ DATE : 17th November, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 24/11/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada …..Applicant Vs. MULEY SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO Digitally signed by MULEY SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO Date: 2022.11.28 10:32:04 +0530 The Commissioner Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. …..Respondents Mr. Sharique Nachan a/w Mr. Azeem Shaikh & Tanzila Kazi i/by Judicare Law Associates for Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. Tejas Dande for Respondent No.1. Ms. Sayli Patil i/by Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for Respondnt No.2. Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for State. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & ARIF S. DOCTOR, JJ. DATE : 24 th NOVEMBER, 2022. P.C.:- The learned AGP seeks time to take instructions from the Police authorities. Place the matter on 16th December, 2022. (ARIF. S. DOCTOR, J.) (S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2022 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada .Applicant IN THE MATTER OF Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada .Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. .Respondents ----------- Mr.Sharique Nachan, Mr. Aman Khan, Mr. Wasim Karol i/b. Judicare Law Associates for the Applicant/Petitioner. Mr. Tejesh Dande for Respondent No.1-Corporation. Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni for Respondent No.2-CIDCO. Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos. 3 to 6. CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND M. W. CHANDWANI, JJ. DATE : 14 FEBRUARY 2023 P. C. . Time of one week is granted to the learned AGP to obtain instructions in terms of the order dated 24th November, 2022. The instructions shall be obtained prior to the next date of the proceedings. Stand over to 21st February, 2023. ( M. W. CHANDWANI, J. ) ( A. S. CHANDURKAR, J. )

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17568 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.132 OF 2021 Tanzimul Muslimin Society Sanpada, Navi Mumbai .. Applicant-Petitioner Vs. The Commissioner, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Sharique Nachan, with Ms. Tanzila Kazi and Mr. Amaan Khan, i/by Judicare Law Associate, for the Applicant-Petitioner. Mr. Tejas Dande for Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation. Mr. R.D. Soni, with Mr. Sujay Gawade and Ms. Mudita Pawar, i/by Shree & Co., for the Intervenor. Dr. Birendra B. Saraf, Advocate General, with Mr. P.P. Kakade and Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 to 6-State. CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR & M.W. CHANDWANI, JJ DATE : 21ST FEBRUARY, 2023. ORAL ORDER : { Per A.S. Chandurkar, J. } In this Interim Application, preferred by the original petitioner in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, the following prayers have been made :- (a). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.3 to appoint a suitable officer as Nodal Officer or this Hon'ble Court itself be pleased to appoint any suitable officer from the departments of the respondents as a Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of the Masjid on the said Plot bearing No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai as per the approved plan in accordance with law. (b). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No.6 to provide police protection for the construction of the Masjid at the said Plot bearing No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai." Writ Petition No.132 of 2021 was filed by the applicant raising a challenge to the communication dated 27th December 2018 issued by the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, by which the applicant was informed that though on 17th November 2018, building permission had been granted by the Municipal Corporation, a likelihood of a law and order situation could arise if the construction was undertaken by the applicant. Hence, the Municipal Corporation temporarily stayed the building permission granted by it on 17th November 2018. In addition, the applicant prayed that the State of Maharashtra be directed to appoint a suitable officer as a Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of a Masjid as per the approved plan. The aforesaid writ petition was decided on 31st January 2022. The impugned communication dated 27th December 2018 came to be set aside by observing that if the Municipal Corporation apprehended any law and order situation, it could seek necessary assistance from the local police station in that regard. The writ petition was accordingly allowed. However, the intervention application filed by Akhil Sanpada Sanskrutik Pratisthan came to be dismissed. By urging that the applicant, which was the original petitioner, was seeking implementation of the order dated 31 st January 2022 passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this interim application has been filed. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that while allowing Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this Court had set aside the communication dated 27 th December 2018 issued by the Municipal Corporation. As a result, the temporary stay that was imposed on the building permission on 17 th November 2018 stood vacated. It was thus incumbent upon the Commissioner of Police, Navi Mumbai to provide police protection for such construction. It was also the responsibility of the authorities and especially the State Government to appoint a Nodal Officer to facilitate construction of a Masjid on a Plot No.17A, Sector 8, Navi Mumbai as per the approved plan. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A. Ansari and Anr. Vs. Indian Airlines Ltd. 1 and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. (Applicant) in the matter between Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2 , it was urged that notwithstanding the fact that the writ petition had been disposed of, this Court could consider entertaining the interim application in the disposed of writ petition as the applicant was seeking directions in the furtherance of the order passed in the writ petition. According to learned counsel, if the interim application was not 1 (2009) 2 SCC 164 2 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 12962 entertained, the applicant would be required to initiate fresh proceedings on account of inaction on the part of the authorities. The learned Advocate General for the non-applicant nos.3 to 6 as well as the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant no.1 joined issue and opposed the interim application on the ground that the relief sought in the interim application was not in furtherance of any directions issued in the writ petition, nor could it be said that the applicant was seeking implementation of the order passed therein. The issuance of the communication dated 14th April 2022 by the Police Authorities was justified for the reason that until certain factual aspects were verified by the said authority, further instructions could not be issued by that authority. The applicant had been called upon to submit relevant documents, on the basis of which further steps would be taken in the matter. It was thus urged that the interim application need not deserve consideration and the applicant could initiate appropriate proceedings for seeking the prayers made in the interim application. The learned counsel appearing for the intervenor-Akhil Sanpada Sanskrutik Pratisthan submitted that the intervenors had filed Interim Application No.371 of 2022 seeking intervention in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, had been dismissed by the Court on 31st January 2022 while disposing of the writ petition. That order was challenged by the intervenor by filing proceedings before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by the order dated 9th May 2022, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that rejection of the intervention application was wrong. It was noted that the intervenor had challenged the building permission granted by the Competent Authority on 17th November 2018 by filing an appeal under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (for short "Act of 1966"), which appeal was pending. A direction was issued that the proceedings pending before the State Government as well as before the Layout Committee would not be governed by the order passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021 on 31st January 2022. Despite that, the intervenor had not been impleaded in the present interim application and on that ground, the said application was liable to be rejected. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having duly considered the rival submissions, we are of the view that the interim application does not deserve consideration. At the outset, we may note that prayer clause (a) in the interim application is ad verbatim prayer clause (b) in the writ petition, which reads as under :- "(b). This Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate and suitable writ, direction and pass an order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondent no.3 to appoint a suitable officer as Nodal Officer to facilitate the construction of Masjid on the said Plot as per the approved plan, in accordance with law." Prayer clause (b) having been sought for in the writ petition and the same not having been granted while deciding the writ petition implies that the said prayer stands refused by this Court. A prayer which was made in the writ petition but not granted while disposing of the writ petition cannot be the subject matter of an interim application in the disposed of writ petition that is filed on the premise that the original petitioner seeks implementation of the directions issued in the writ petition. The remedy for seeking a prayer not granted in the writ petition would not be by way of an interim application in the disposed of writ petition. For that reason, prayer clause (a) in the interim application cannot be considered. Coming to prayer clause (b) in the interim application, which pertains to a direction to be issued to the Commissioner of Police to provide police protection for construction of the Masjid, it is seen that while disposing of Writ Petition No.132 of 2021, this Court had observed that if the Municipal Corporation apprehends any law and order situation, it could write to the local police station, which could then provide necessary assistance so as to maintain the law and order. Accordingly, on 13th April 2022, the Assistant Director, Town Planning Department of the Municipal Corporation wrote to the Police Commissioner that the applicant had made an application to it in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021. Acting on that communication, the office of the Police Commissioner – the 6th respondent, on 14th April 2022, sought certain information from the Municipal Commissioner with a copy thereof to the applicant. This, according to the applicant, was not permissible and amounted to the Police Authorities sitting in appeal over the civil rights that had accrued in favour of the applicant pursuant to the order passed in the writ petition. In other words, the applicant is aggrieved by issuance of the communication dated 14th April 2022 and has indicated that the said authority ought not to have required furnishing of the details that are mentioned in the communication dated 14th April 2022. It is thus apparent that if the applicant is aggrieved by the communication dated 14th April 2022 on the premise that the said authority was not justified in seeking such information, it would be necessary for the applicant to challenge that communication. As long as that communication operates, prayer clause (b) seeking direction to be issued to the respondent no.6 to provide police protection cannot be considered in the interim application that has been filed in a disposed of writ petition. Perusal of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A. Ansari and Anr. (Supra) indicates that a direction was issued by the High Court holding the petitioners therein entitled to be posted on a post in equivalent scale that was held by them with a further direction to pay them arrears of pay and allowances, if they were posted on a post of higher grade. The learned Single Judge issued the directions, as sought for, in a miscellaneous application in the disposed of writ petition. In appeal, the Division Bench held that the miscellaneous application was not maintainable since the writ petition had been disposed of. The order passed on that application was set aside by the Division Bench. In challenge to the order of the Division Bench, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that when the proceedings stand terminated by final disposal of the writ petition, it is not open to the Court to re-open the proceedings by means of a miscellaneous application in respect of a matter which provides fresh cause of action. However, at the same time, there is no prohibition on a party applying for clarification, if the order is not clear and the party against whom it has been made is trying to take advantage as the order is couched in ambiguous or equivocal words. Since it was found that the miscellaneous application was filed for pursuing and getting implemented the relief granted in the writ petition, which was for placement in the appropriate grade, it was held that the miscellaneous application was maintainable. This decision has been followed in Archana Nilesh Gore and Anr. (Supra). As noted above, prayer clause (a) in the interim application cannot be granted since a similar prayer made in the writ petition was not granted when the writ petition was disposed of. As regards prayer clause (b), unless the communication dated 14th April 2022 issued by the 6th respondent is shown to have been erroneously issued, that relief cannot be granted. The prayers made in the interim application cannot be said to be the prayers made for clarification of the order or for implementing the relief granted in the writ petition. Such request for grant of police protection was under consideration of the 6th respondent and in that regard, factual information has been sought by it. If the petitioner is aggrieved by that communication, it would have to challenge the same, as entitlement to the same has not been decided in Writ Petition No.132 of 2021. Another pertinent aspect that requires mention is that the applicant was 21-IA-17568-2022.doc Dixit granted building permission on 17th November 2018 to undertake the construction of a Masjid. This building permission itself has been challenged by the intervenor by filing an appeal under Section 47 of the Act of 1966 before the State Government. It is stated that even today, the said proceedings are pending. Thus, unless the applicant is armed with building permission that has become final, the question of implementation of an order granting police protection with a view to implement the order granting building permission to construct Masjid cannot be considered in an interim application filed in a disposed of writ petition. Thus, for aforesaid reasons, the Interim Application stands rejected. The applicant is at liberty to take such steps as are permissible in law for seeking redressal of its grievance. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the prayers made in the interim application on merits and the observations herein are only with a view to decide maintainability of the interim application. [ M.W. CHANDWANI, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J. ]

Order - Status 4: NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Digitally signed by NITIN DINKAR JAGTAP Date: 2021.10.09 12:06:01 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel … Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents Mr.S.G.Kudle for the Petitioner. Mr.S.B.Kalel, AGP for the State. Mr.Saurabh Oka for Respondent No. 8. CORAM : S.J. KATHAWALLA, & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ. DATE : 8TH OCTOBER, 2021 P.C. : The Respondents shall file their respective Affidavits-in-Reply within a period of one week from today. Stand over to 18th October, 2021. (MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ) ( S.J. KATHAWALLA, J. )

Order - Status 6: 69.6555-21-wp.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel ….. Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents Mr. S.G.Kudale for the petitioner Mr.Prashant Suryawansh i/b Mr.G.M.Savagave for the respondents Smt.A.A.Purav, A.G.P. for the State Mr.Saurabh Oak for the respondent no.1 CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATED : APRIL 12, 2022 P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner was apprised of the fact that the order that is sought to be challenged is passed in Second Appeal. The proper procedure is to move the second appellate court if the petitioner feels that fraud is being played by the respondents. The order passed in Second Appeal i.e. Civil Court cannot be challenged by way of Writ Petition. The Second Appeal is under the Civil Jurisdiction. The order is passed below Exhibit 1 in Regular TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Digitally signed by TRUSHA TUSHAR MOHITE Date: 2022.04.18 15:14:04 +0530 Darkhast also. If the petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the respondents then the proper procedure is to challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. The learned counsel for the petitioner may consider this aspect. Stand over to 07.06.2022. (VINAY JOSHI, J.) (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT Mr. Shikur Gafur Kudle for Petitioner Mr. N.K.Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent-State Mr. Prashant R. Suryawanshi i/b Mr. G.M.Savagave, Advocate for R.No.6 & 7 CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ DATE : 7th June, 2022 P.C. : S. O. to 28/06/2022 . ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. G. SEWLIKAR, JJ DATE : 28th June, 2022 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 03/08/2022 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6555 OF 2021 Shakerabanu Afsar Patel Thr Her Att Nasir Nuruddin Patel ....PETITIONER V/S The State Of Maharashtra And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE R.D. DHANUKA & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 13th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 27/03/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 6555 OF 2021 VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Shankerabanu Afsar Patel ….Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ….Respondents Digitally signed by VAISHALI ANIL TIKAM Date: 2023.03.10 14:32:26 +0530 Mr. S.K. Kudle, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. N.K. Rajpurohit, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 5 Mr. P.r. Suryawanshi i/by Mr. G.M. Savagave for Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 Mr. Ketan Dhavle i/by Mr. Saurabh Oka, Advocate for Respondent No.8 Mr. T.J. Pandian, Advocate for Respondent No.5 Mr. S.S. Aradhye, Advocate for Respondent No.6 CORAM:- R.D. DHANUKA & GAURI GODSE, JJ. DATE :- 6TH MARCH, 2023. P. C.: The Petitioner has impugned the order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 690 of 2014 in this Writ Petition, on the ground that fraud is committed by some of the Respondents in obtaining the order in Second Appeal No. 690/2014. Learned counsel for the Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 raises an issue regarding maintainability of this Writ Petition. Our attention is invited to the order dated 12th April, 2022 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. By the said order, dated 12th April, 2022, this Court has already observed; if the Petitioner contends that the fraud has been played by the Respondents then the proper procedure is to be challenge the said order obtained by fraud before the appropriate forum and not in Writ Petition. Provisions of Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure would come into play. This Court after making these observations, directed the learned counsel for the Petitioner to consider this aspect. Mr. Kudale, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that since the fraud is committed in obtaining the order in Second Appeal, this Court can set aside the order passed in Second Appeal, in Writ Petition. We are afraid, we cannot accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner . Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the correctness of the order passed in Second Appeal for want of jurisdiction. If any appropriate proceedings are filed by the Petitioner, the same shall be decided on its own merits. All contentions of the parties are kept open. (GAURI GODSE, J.) ( R.D.DHANUKA, J. )

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3353 OF 2021 Ramesh Baban Gavhane & Anr. Petitioners Vs. Shaila Suresh Kanhurkar Respondent Mr. Drupad Patil for Petitioners Coram : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. Date : 26th JULY, 2021 P.C.: Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, on instructions makes a motion for withdrawal of the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, this will not preclude the Petitioner from taking out such other proceedings as are permissible and available in law, which be dealt with in accordance with law without being influenced by the withdrawal of the present petition. ( NITIN W. SAMBRE, 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 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J/CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A. S. OKA AND REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. DATED : 22nd JUNE, 2015 P.C. : On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Daily and Supplementary Board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 183 to 189, 191, 197, 209, 211, 217, 220 to 228, 251 (A.S) 02/07/2015 192 (A.S), 231, 232, 243, 276 (O.S) 03/07/2015 195 (O.S.) 19/08/2015 198, 229 (A.S) 16/07/2015 199, 200, 230 (A.S) 30/07/2015 201 to 204 (A.S.) 03/08/2015 205, 206, 249 (A.S.) 04/08/2015 207 (O.S.) 03/09/2015 208 (O.S.) 16/09/2015 210, 212 (O.S.) 30/09/2015 213 to 216, 219 (O.S.) 05/10/2015 233 to 235 (O.S.) 06/10/2015 236, 252 to 256 (O.S.) 07/10/2015 237 (A.S.) 06/08/2015 239 (A.S.) 13/07/2015 240, 242, 282, 286 (O.S.) 06/07/2015 241 (A.S.) 07/08/2015 244, 273 (A.S.) 10/08/2015 245, 246, 274 (O.S.) 07/07/2015 Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 247, 257, 259 to 268, 271, 272, 280, 281, 283, 284, 295, 299 to 304 (A.S) 24/07/2015 248, 275 (O.S.) 08/07/2015 258, 285, 287, 288 (O.S.) 09/10/2015 269, 270 (A.S.) 11/08/2015 277, 278 (O.S.) 09/07/2015 279 (A.S.) 23/07/2015 289 to 291 (O.S) 13/10/2015 292 to 294, 296 to 298 (O.S) 14/10/2015 305 to 308, 311, 316 (A.S) 27/07/2015 313 (A.S) 28/07/2015 314, 315 (A.S) 29/07/2015 317 (A.S) 30/07/2015 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.) (A. S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA & REVATI MOHITE DERE, JJ. DATE : JULY 2, 2015 P.C. On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Daily and Supplementary Board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 55 05/10/2015 56 to 63, 84, 85, 91, 94, 95, 97, 98, 903, 905 30/07/2015 64 12/08/2015 65 to 75, 96 21/08/2015 76(OS), 81 13/07/2015 77(OS) 07/10/2015 78(OS) 14/10/2015 79, 82, 83, 88, 89, 90, 93(OS) 16/11/2015 80(OS) 20/07/2015 86(OS) 14/07/2015 87(OS) 22/07/2015 92(OS) 24/07/2015 901 16/07/2015 904 31/07/2015 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected.

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL/CRIMINAL JURISDICTION / O.O.C.J. COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA, AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 21st AUGUST, 2015 P.C. . The following matters on Balance Board / Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed by C.M.I.S. Sr. No. C.M.I.S Date 67 03/09/2015 68 05/10/2015 69, 70 06/10/2015 71 08/10/2015 72 16/10/2015 73 17/10/2015 74, 75, 76 27/10/2015 77, 78 28/10/2015 79 20/11/2015 80, 89, 90, 91, 92 23/11/2015 81 13/10/2015 82, 84, 85 01/09/2015 83, 87, 88, 123, 124, 125, 139, 140 (O.S.) 14/12/2015 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98 24/11/2015 99, 100 26/11/2015 101 to 120 30/11/2015 121, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 142, 143, 144, 148, 149, 150, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 158, 160, 162, 163, 164, 902 01/12/2015 126 (Criminal) 14/10/2015 127 (O.S.) 11/09/2015 128 (O.S.) 14/09/2015 129, 130, 131, 132, 145, 146, 147, 151, 157, 159, 161 15/10/2015 137 (O.S.) 15/09/2015 141 (O.S.) 15/12/2015 . If any adinterim relief or interim relief in the aforesaid matters is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the dates which are fixed under this order. If any adinterim or interim order is to operate till further orders, such orders shall remain unaffected. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 11: Shephali IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE AND ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER FOR BALANCE BOARD OF DAILY BOARD DATED 23RD NOVEMBER 2015 CORAM: A.S. OKA & G.S. PATEL, JJ. DATED: 23rd November 2015 PC:- The following matters on Balance Board / Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. The matters will appear on the dates as may be fixed by C.M.I.S. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 54, 56, 57, 58, 61 03/12/15 55 (O.S.), 70 23/03/16 59 (O.S.), 71 to 80, 87 (O.S.), 106, 111, 114 29/03/16 60, 85, 86, 88, 89 (O.S.) 11/04/16 62, 64, 65, 81 (O.S.) 16/12/15 63 20/01/16 66 to 69 22/03/16 82, 83, 84 (O.S.) 17/12/15 90 to 98, 100, 105, 107 to 110, 113 25/01/16 99, 104 (O.S.) 05/12/15 101, 102, 103 (O.S.) 12/04/16 112 (O.S. 07/12/15 116, 117 14/01/16 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 the ad-interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. (G. S. PATEL, J.) (A.S. OKA, J.)

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION COMMON ORDER CORAM : A.S. OKA & G.S.PATEL, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 16, 2015 P.C. On account of paucity of time, rest of the matters on Daily and Supplementary Board stand adjourned on the dates fixed as per the CMIS. Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date Sr. Nos. C.M.I.S. Date 27 21­03­2016 34, 35, 37, 46 to 06­05­2016 61 28 02­05­2016 39, 40, 41 06­01­2016 29 05­05­2016 42 (OS) 15­06­2016 30 (OS) 15­02­2016 43, 44, 75, 76, 77, 79 (OS) 28­06­2016 31 09­03­2016 45, 74 22­02­2016 32, 36, 38 10­03­2016 62 to 72, 78, 80 to 85 06­06­2016 33 08­02­2016 73 (OS) 27­01­2016 If in any of the above matters, adinterim relief or interim relief is operative till today, the same will continue to operate till the respective next dates. If adinterim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said orders will remain unaffected. ( G.S.PATEL, J ) (A.S. OKA, J ) ssp

Order - Status 17: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4182 OF 2015 Mohan Somla Pagi … Petitioner Versus The Administrator, Union Territory of Daman & Diu and Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Ors. … Respondents Ms. Dipti Kuber i/by Devmani Shukla for the petitioner. None for the respondents. CORAM : SHANTANU KEMKAR & MAKARAND KARNIK, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 19, 2016. P.C. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not taken any action on the petitioner's complaint dated 8.1.2015 Exh.A in regard to the raising of the illegal construction on the land bearing S. No. 244, located at Silvasa, Dadra Nagar Haveli. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we dispose of this petition by directing the respondents to examine the petitioner's complaint and take appropriate action in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as also to the concerned affected persons. Let the action as aforesaid be taken as expeditiously as possible but not latter than four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The Petitioner to give copy of the complaint dated 8.1.2015 to the respondents along with the copy of this order. With the aforesaid directions, petition is disposed of. (MAKARAND KARNIK, J.) (SHANTANU KEMKAR, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2053 of 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8145 OF 2011 ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearance, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­ Petitioner Ansari i/b. Ms.Saima Ansari i/b. R.N.Gite for the the Mr.Sachin Padye i/b. Girish Agarwal for the Respondents. CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED : 29th AUGUST, 2013 P.C. : Rule. [R.Y.GANOO, J.]

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2053 OF 2013 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8145 OF 2011 Smt. Rangubai Anandrao Murkute & Ors..... Applicants Vs. Shri. Bhika Ganpat Murkute (deceased) .... Respondents thru' heirs and LRs. Shri. Ashok Bhika Murkute & Ors. Ms. Saima Ansari h/for Mr. R.N. Gite, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr. G.R. Agarwal, Advocate for respondents no.1 A to 1F. Coram : Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J. Date : 4th July, 2014. P.C. This civil application is for restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed pursuant to the order dtd. 3rd April, 2013. By that order, an application for adjournment by the applicant was granted on condition that the applicants pay costs quantified Rs.1,500/ by depositing the same in the office of Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, High Court, Mumbai on/or before the next date, which was after one week. The costs being condition precedent, it was directed that if the costs are not paid within the stipulated time, the petition shall stand dismissed without any further reference to the court. Admittedly, the costs are not paid till date. In that circumstance, there can be no question of restoration of the writ petition. The civil application is therefore dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J.)

Order - Status 4: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8302 OF 2024 In Writ Petition STAMP NO. 95499 OF 2020 M/s Mantech Counting And Systems Llp ....PETITIONER V/S Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN JAMDAR & HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M. M. SATHAYE, JJ DATE : 25th July, 2024 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 04/09/2024 In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 7: 30-as-ia-8302-2024.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8302 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.95499 OF 2020 M/s. Mantech Counting and Systems LLP …Applicant / Petitioner Versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and ors …Respondents *** Mr. E.A. Sasi for the Applicant / Petitioner. Mr. K. S. Thorat, 'B' Panel Advocate for the Respondent No.4 - State *** CORAM: NITIN JAMDAR & M.M. SATHAYE, JJ. DATE : 6 SEPTEMBER 2024 P.C.: . Registry to examine the subject matter and place the Application before the appropriate bench as per roster. ( M.M. SATHAYE, J.) ( NITIN JAMDAR, J.)

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.8302 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO.95499 OF 2020 M/s. Mantech Counting & Systems LLP .. Applicant Versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. E.A. Sasi a/w. Mr. Arnav Rane, Mr. Tejas Shinde & Mr. Bijoy Chacko, Advocates for the Applicant. Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl.G.P. a/w. Mr. Karan Thorat, B Panel for Respondent No.4-State. CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : NOVEMBER 19, 2024 P. C. The above Interim Application is filed seeking condonation of delay and to restore the above Writ Petition to file, which was dismissed pursuant to the Order passed by the Registrar (Judicial-I) for non-removal of office objections. Since the above Interim Application is coming up for the first time, the Registry is directed to issue notice to Respondent Nos.1 to 3, returnable on 17th December, 2024. In addition to the Court notice, the Applicant is permitted to serve the papers and proceedings of the above Interim Application, along with the above Writ Petition, and a copy of this Order, on Respondent Nos.1 to 3 by private notice as well. Mr. Patel, learned AGP waives notice on behalf of Respondent No.4. Stand over to 17 th December, 2024. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8302 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 95499 OF 2020 M/s. Mantech Counting & Systems LLP …Applicant/ Original Petitioner Versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors …Respondents Mr. E.A. Sasi, a/w Arnav Rane & Bijoy Chacko for the Applicant. Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl.GP, a/w K.S. Thorat B Panel, for Respondent No.4. None for Respondent No.1. CORAM : B. P. COLABAWALLA & SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, JJ. DATE : DECEMBER 17, 2024 PC : The above Interim Application is filed seeking a Condonation of Delay of approximately one year and nine months in filing the above Application and to set aside the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial-I) dated 16th June, 2022 under which the above Writ Petition was dismissed for non-removal of office objections. Page 1 of 3 December 17, 2024 Ashwini Vallakati The learned AGP appears on behalf of the State of Maharashtra (Respondent No.4). As far as Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, we find that they have been duly served by private notice (as directed by our order dated 19th November, 2024) and an affidavit of service (dated 9th December, 2024) to that effect is also filed. Despite service, none have appeared on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 3. We have gone through the above Interim Application. Though we are not fully satisfied with the explanation given for the delay, in order to ensure that the Applicant/original Petitioner is not denied an opportunity of redressing their grievances on merits, we condone the delay and set aside the order passed by the Registrar (Judicial-I) dated 16th June, 2022 subject to the condition that the Applicant/original Petitioner pay cost of Rs.50,000/- to the Tata Memorial Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai, within a period of two weeks from today and the receipt evidencing the payment of cost is submitted to the Registry of this Court which shall be kept in the file of the above matter. Once the costs are paid, the above Writ Petition shall be restored to the file and the office objections if any, shall also be removed by the Applicant/original Petitioner within a period of two weeks Page 2 of 3 December 17, 2024 Ashwini Vallakati thereafter. It is made clear that if the costs are not paid as stipulated in this order, the above Interim Application shall automatically stands dismissed without further reference to the Court. The Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [ SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.] [ B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 8302 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 95499 OF 2020 M/s Mantech Counting and Systems LLP Petitioner Versus Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation & Ors. Respondents Ms. Bhagyashri Mangale i/b E.A. Sasi for the Petitioner/Applicant. CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JANUARY 3, 2025 P. C. Not on Board. At the request of the Applicant/Petitioner, taken on Board. The time to pay the cost of Rs. 50,000 to the Tata Memorial Hospital and Research Centre, Mumbai (pursuant to the Order dated 17th December 2024) is extended by a period of one week from today. Page 1 of 2 JANUARY 3, 2025 3. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

Order - Status 3: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1/2 INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1485 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 13227 OF 2018 Mr. Abhijit Gorak Kanse & Ors. ...Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Mr.Santosh Bapurao Rathod & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Zishan Quazi for the Applicants. Adv. Mangal Bhandari a/w. Mr.Mangesh Madhav Deshmukh for the Petitioners. …… Mr. S.P. Thorat, AGP for the Respondent -State. Dr.Gunratan Sadavarte for Respondent No. 150. CORAM : A. A. SAYED & V.G.BISHT, JJ …... DATED : 13th JULY, 2021 (Through VC) P.C.: INTERIM APPLICATION The Interim Application is taken out for transposition of Petitioner Nos. 9, 11, 26, 28 and 29 as party Respondents. By consent, the Application is allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). Amendment to be carried out within a week. Amended copy of the Petition be served upon the Respondents. The Interim Application to stand disposed of. WRIT PETITION Learned AGP seeks time to file Affidavit in Reply. Affidavit in Reply to be filed within one week from today and copy thereof shall be served upon the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned Counsel for the other Respondents. List this Petition on 27th July, 2021. (V.G.BISHT, J.) (A. A. SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 1/2 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1485 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 13227 OF 2018 …. ... Mr. Abhijit Gorak Kanse & Ors. ...Applicants IN THE MATTER BETWEEN Mr.Santosh Bapurao Rathod & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Anil Sakhare a/w Mr.Zishan Quazi for the Applicants. Adv. Mangal Bhandari a/w. Mr.Mangesh Madhav Deshmukh for the Petitioners. Mr. S.P. Thorat, AGP for the Respondent -State. Mrs.Vaishali Jagdale for Respondents Nos.41,42,43. ... CORAM : A.A. SAYED & V. G. BISHT, JJ. DATED : 27 JULY 2021 (THROUGH V.C.) P.C.: Leaned AGP states that the draft copy of the Affidavit-in-Reply has been sent to the concerned Officer and the same shall be filed by Friday i.e. 30 July 2021 with a copy to the other side. Rejoinder,if any, before the next date. Stand over to 5 August 2021. In the meantime, the Respondent No.5-MPSC is directed to furnish email-ids of Respondent No.6 to Respondent No.159 to the Advocate for the Petitioner, on the Advocate for the Petitioner communicating this order to Respondent No.5-MPSC as also the names of the said Respondents. 2/2 (V. G. BISHT,J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....Petitioner V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....Respondent CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE, J DATE : 17th January, 2020 P.C. : Due to paucity of time the matter is adjourned to 07/02/2020 . In case any ad-interim/interim relief is operating till today, the said order will continue to operate till the next date. If ad-interim/interim relief is not granted for a limited period, the said order will remain unaffected. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 8: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT for Petitioner for Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 30th November, 2022 P.C. : Wrongly on board. Remove from the Board. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 10: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 11: Order Text Request Text Click the button above to request the full text of this order.

Order - Status 13: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors RESPONDENT Mr. Amit Shroff a/w Ashna Shah i/by HARISH SHROFF AND CO for Petitioner Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No.1 & 2 Mr. Karl K. Shroff i/by Mr. Kalpesh Nansi Adv. for R. No. in wp No.15545/22 & Petioner in WP 11053/2019 Mr. Sachin Punde, Adv. for R. No. 6 & 7 in CRA & Petitioner in WP CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 23rd January, 2023 P.C. : S. O. to 06/02/2023 ( at 2.30 pm). ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 16: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ....APPLICANT V/S Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar And Ors. ...RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh And Ors ....PETITIONER V/S Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar And Ors ....RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Mr. Nirmal Madanlal Tater And Anr ....PETITIONER V/S Shri Padmanabh Builders And Ors ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND N. JADHAV J DATE : 20th February, 2023 P.C. : Balance Daily Board cannot be taken up today on account of paucity of time. Stand over to 10/04/2023 . Ad-interim relief or interim relief, if any, granted earlier will continue to operate till next date. ( FOR REGISTRAR JUDICIAL - I )

Order - Status 18: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.439 OF 2022 [Parekh Vs. Shree Padmanabh] WITH WRIT PETITION NO.15545 OF 2022 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders. Mr. Amit Shroff, Advocate a/w. Ashna Shah i/b Harish Shroff & Co. for Applicant in CRA/439/2022. Mr. Sachin S. Punde, Advocate for the Petitioner in WP/15545/2022. Mr. Karl K. Shroff, Advocate i/b. Kalpesh J. Nansi for the Petitioner in WP/11053/2019. Mr.V.V. Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w. K.D. Shah for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in all matters. CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J. DATE : 25th APRIL, 2023 P.C.: Due to paucity of time, both sides agree that the matters can be heard post-vacation. By way of interim arrangement, learned counsel of both sides agree that the affidavit-in-evidence can be filed in the suit, however, the cross-examinations may not be conducted till these matters are heard by this Court on the next occasion. Therefore, this arrangement shall continue till the next date of listing before this Court. Stand over to 25.7.2023. (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) Deshmane (PS)

Order - Status 20: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 439 OF 2022 Parekh Market Premises Co-op Ltd. ...Applicant. Versus Shree Padmanabh Builders, Ghatkopar & Ors. ..Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 15545 OF 2022 Nirmal Madanlal Tater & Anr. ...Petitioners. Versus Padmanabh Builders & Ors. ...Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioner. Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondent. Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Harish Shroff and Co. for the applicant in CRA & respondent No.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kishore D. Shah for the respondent No. 1 & 2 in CRA and respondent no.1 in WP 11053/2019. Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for respondent No 3 & 5. in CRA & WP 15545/2022 & Petitioner in WP 11053/2019. Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 25, 2023. P. C. : Not on board. Upon mentioning, taken on production board. $Patil_{SR}$ 1 of 2 Application has been moved seeking extension of ad-interim relief granted vide order dated 25th April 2023. List the matter on 31st July 2023 . Interim arrangement recorded in the order dated 25th April 2023 to continue till the next date. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 23: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11053 OF 2019 Harshadrai P. Parekh & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Kanaiyalal M. Thakkar & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Amit Shroff i/b Mr. Kalpesh Nansi for the Petitioners. Mr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar i/b Mr. Kishore D. Shah for Respondent No. 1. Ms. Ashna Shah i/b Mr. Harish Shroff & Co. for Respondent No.4. —————— —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J. Date : July 31, 2023. P. C. : Heard. The challenge in the Petition is to the order dated 24th April 2019 allowing the Notice of Motion No. 3320 of 2015 preferred by the original Respondent No. 1 seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015. Heard Mr. Amit Shroff, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, Dr. Virendra V. Tulzapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1 and Ms. Ashna Shah, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4. Mr. Shroff, Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners submit that the Petitioners are one of the unit holders of first floor of the property known as Parekh Market and would submit that in view of termination of the Power of Attorney by Respondent No. 2 on 7th February, 2000 the Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to continue with the proceeding. He would further submit that the termination was challenged by the Respondent No. 1 which was taken right up to Apex Court in an application filed by Respondent No. 2 under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC and has been held to be time barred. He has taken to this Court to the order 24th November, 2006 passed by the Single Judge of this Court holding that the counter claim which was filed on 9th August, 2004 will not be maintainable in terms of the provisions of the Limitation Act. He would further submit that the Power of Attorney was in respect of the tenants who were occupying part of the property admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. and has nothing to do with the Respondent No. 4 society in which the Petitioners are one of the Unit holders. He has invited the attention of this Court to the Power of Attorney dated 8th June, 1990 which is at page No. 204 of the Petition and would submit that the proceedings in question have been instituted on the basis of this Power of Attorney. He would submit that the power which was given under the Power of Attorney was to file against the occupants of the structures which forms part of the portion of land admeasuring 2455 sq. ft. He would further submit that the said Power of Attorney having been terminated which challenge has failed right up to Apex court, Respondent No. 1 does not acquire any right to act on behalf of Respondent No. 2. He would further contend that the agreement which was executed with the unit holders was on 6th February, 1987 which was prior to the execution of the Power of Attorney. He would further urge that the Trial Court while allowing the Notice of Motion has failed to take into consideration the orders of the Single Judge of this Court as well as the Apex Court which upheld that the counter claim filed was barred by limitation. He would urge that as the challenge to the termination of the Power of Attorney has failed, the Power of Attorney cannot be said to be subsisting. He would further assail the finding of the Trial Court on the ground that the Trial Court has erroneously recorded that the affidavits filed by Defendant Nos. 2 to 4, no ground has been taken that the Power of Attorney concerned only the tenants and not the Defendant Nos. 2 to 4. He would further submit that the Trial Court has given specific findings in respect of the Power of Attorney being an irrevocable Power of Attorney was given for consideration coupled with interest. He would urge that by these findings, the challenge if any, to the Power of Attorney has been foreclosed by the Trial Court. Per contra, Dr. Virendra Tuljapurkar, learned senior counsel appearing for the Respondent-Plaintiff submits that the Notice of Motion was taken out by the Respondent for setting aside the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. He would further contend that the entire issue which was for consideration before the Trial Court was the application of provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC and it is in that context, that the Trial Court has examined the Power of Attorney and has held that the provisions of Order 39 Rule 11 is not attracted in the present case. He would further submit that the order dated 15th July, 2015 was passed as the Trial Court had directed the original Plaintiff to appear in the Court. He would submit that the original Plaintiff, if required, will appear before the Court and in the present case, the only inquiry is the impugned order permitting recall of order of dismissal. He would further urge that in exercise to the power under Article 227, this Court may not go into the merits of an interlocutory order. Considered the submissions and perused the papers. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner has made submissions as regards the validity of the Power of Attorneys which have been executed by the Respondent No. 2 in favour of Respondent No. 1. Perusal of the impugned order dated 24th April, 2019 discloses that the application was moved seeking recall of the order dated 15th July, 2015 keeping the matter for dismissal for non compliance of the order directing presence of the original Plaintiff by invoking the powers under Order 39 Rule 11 of the CPC. The Affidavit in support of the Notice of Motion seeking recall of the order contends that there was a development agreement entered into in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and the possession was handed over for valuable consideration on a partly developed property and building was constructed thereon and various tenements were sold. The contention advanced was that Respondent No. 1 was granted irrevocable Power of Attorney as well as other Power of Attorney as required for development of the said properties and as such, considering the provisions of section 202 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest and hence, irrevocable. Apart from the prayer of seeking recall of the order an alternate prayer was sought that the Applicant be substituted in place of the Plaintiff under Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 which was not allowed and only the relief of recall of the order of dismissal was sought. It is in the context of the contentions taken up by the Respondent No. 1 for the purpose of assailing the order of dismissal that the Trial Court has gone into the issue as to whether the Power of Attorney is a power coupled with interest. After observing the provisions of section 2022 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 the Court has held that at this stage the Defendant No. 2 to 4 cannot challenge the validity of the power of Attorney which would otherwise be the matter in issue and can only be decided when both the parties will get an opportunity to lead evidence into that effect. The order of the Trial Court is clear in paragraph No. 10 that the issue which was being considered by the Trial Court was only the order dated 15th July, 2015 listing the matter for dismissal by invoking the provisions under Order 39 Rule 11 which according to the Trial Court was not applicable in the given circumstances. The Trial Court specifically observed that the documents place on record by the parties are subject matter of the evidence and therefore, for continuation of the suit on merits, the order dated 15th July, 2015 needs to be recalled and the suit needs to be proceeded on merits. In my view upon reading of the impugned order 24th April, 2019 it cannot be said that by the said order, the Trial Court has conclusively held that the Power of Attorneys which have been pressed into service by the Respondent No. 1 are irrevocable Power of Attorney given for consideration coupled with interest. On the contrary it appears that the Trial Court has held that the documents which are placed are the subject matter of evidence and only for the purpose of continuation of the suit on merits, at that stage, the order dated 15th July, 2015 was recalled. Considering that the impugned order only recalls the order of dismissal dated 15th July, 2015 no interference is warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition being devoid of merits stand dismissed. [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Order - Status 5: SALUNKE J V Digitally signed by SALUNKE J V Date: 2023.01.13 17:42:56 +0530 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 4 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 17167 OF 2022 Sunil Tukaram Jagtap } Petitioner Versus Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande } and Ors. } Respondents Ms. Radhali Kadam with Mr. S. S. Kulkarni for the petitioner. Mr. A. R. Gole for respondent no. 1. Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for respondent no. 2. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Government Pleader with Mr. M. M. Pabale, AGP for State. Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kiran Gandhi i/b. Little and Co. for respondent no. 4. Mr. Aditya A. Joshi i/b. Mr. Abhijeet A. Joshi for respondents 5 and 6 (MSETCL). CORAM: S. V. GANGAPURWALA, Act.CJ.& SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE: JANUARY 13, 2023 P.C.: 1. The learned advocate for respondent no. 2 seeks time to file affidavit in reply to the interim application. The reply shall be filed within one week from today. 2. Place the matter on 1st February 2023. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 1

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.17167 OF 2022 IN PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.4 OF 2020 Sunil Tukaram Jagtap ....Petitioner/Applicant V/S Sanjay Krishnarao Taksande & Ors. ....Respondents … Mr. Shriram S. Kulkarni for the Petitioner/Applicant. Mr. G.S. Godbole a/w Mr. A.R. Gole for Respondent No.1. Mr. Hrishikesh Chavan for Respondent No.2-MSEB. Mr. Anil Sakhare, Senior Advocate and Mr. Kiran Gavellkar i/b M/s. Little & Co. for Respondent No.4-MSEDCL. Mr. P.P. Kakade, GP a/w Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP for Respondent Nos.3 and 7-State. … Mr. Abhijit Joshi for Respondent Nos.5 and 6-MSETCL. CORAM: S.V. GANGAPURWALA, ACJ & SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. DATE : 1st FEBRUARY 2023. P.C.: 1 We have heard the learned Advocate for the Petitioner/Applicant and the learned Advocates for the respective Respondents. 2 The learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has filed Interim Application for amendment in view of the subsequent development. He submits that the Petitioner had challenged the appointment of Respondent No.1 initially with Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Fresh selection process was conducted by Respondent No.4 in which Respondent No.1 is selected as Director (Operations). The same is also against the rules. The rules require that a person with impeccable past history can be considered. The Respondent No.1 does not fit into it. 3 The learned Advocate for the Respondent submits that the fresh appointment is by another employer, the cause of action of the Writ Petition now does not subsist. In view of that in a Writ Petition, for which the cause of action does subsist, amendment may not be allowed. 4 It is not disputed by the learned Advocate for the Petitioner that when the PIL was filed Petitioner was seeking writ of quo warranto qua appointment of Respondent No.1 by Respondent No.5. The tenure of Respondent No.1 with Respondent No.5 is over. Respondent No.4 conducted fresh selection process and has selected Respondent No.1 as Director (Operations). The same would be a completely fresh cause of action as the employer and the designation has changed. 5 In light of above, as the relief in the original Writ Petition itself has become infructuous, it would be improper to consider the present 2/3 Application for amendment. It is for the Petitioner to take appropriate steps by filing proceedings as may be maintainable. 6 In light of above, the PIL and Interim Application stands disposed of. The Petitioner may take proceedings as may be permissible under law. In that event all contentions of the Petitioner as well as respective Respondents are kept open. No costs. (SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Digitally signed by SUDARSHAN RAJALINGAM KATKAM Date: 2023.02.04 10:27:34 +0530