1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4818 OF 2009 Office notes, office memoranda of Corum, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s Judge’s orders. Mr. S.M.Godsay, Counsel for Petitioner. Mr. N.P.Patil, Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ................... [ CORAM : K.K.TATED, J. ] DATE : 24/7/2009. PER COURT : 1. Rule. By consent, Rule returnable forthwith. 2. By this Writ Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India original 2 defendant/Judgment Debtor, challenges the Order dated 18/4/2009 passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Ambajogai below Exh. 59 in Misc. Civil Application No. 22 of 2000. 3. Petitioners are original defendants and Respondents are original plaintiffs. The Respondents filed Suit bearing R.C.S. No. 28 of 1982 for their 1/3rd share in agricultural land and the said Suit came to be decreed on 28/3/1988., As per the said Judgment and Decree dated 28/3/1988, the Respondents took possession of 1/3rd share in agricultural land. Thereafter the petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 55 of 2009 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure on 23rd February, 2009 for following reliefs : (i) This Hon’ble Court further be pleased to issue order afresh of execution in accordance with 3 law after legal compliance i.e. passing of final decree and declaration of other shares by way of modification of decree. (ii) Costs of this petition may kindly be awarded. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit may kindly be granted. 4. Before that, the Respondents preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 22 of 2000 under Order XX Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure for mesne profit. The petitioners have filed application below Exh. 59 for stay of the hearing to Misc. Civil Application No. 22 of 2000 on the ground that their application under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure is pending, in which they raised objection about partition. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that if 4 the Misc. Civil Application No. 22 of 2000 preferred by Respondents under Order XX Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure is decided, then irreparable loss and injury will be cause to them and there will be multiplicity of litigations. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents produced a certified copy of R.C.S. No. 78 of 2007 filed by the petitioners in the Court of the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Ambajogai. In this Suit, Petitioners prayed as under : (A) That the Panchanama of delivery of possession together with the Kabja-Pawati dated 17/1/2007 brought into existence by defendant nos. 5 to 7 in collusion with defendant nos. 3 and 4 be declared to be unauthorised, void and ineffective. (B) That the defendant nos. 5 to 7 be permanently restrained from causing any 5 interference in the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands in any manner on the strength of the aforesaid Panchanama and Kabja Pawti and otherwise then by due process of law and consistent with the principles of equity and natural justice. (C) That the plaintiffs be granted any other equitable relief which the Court deems fit. (D) That the costs of the proceedings to the Suit be awarded to the plaintiffs from the defendant nos. 5 to 7 and oblige. 6. The said Suit came to be dismissed by Judgment and Order dated 16/8/2007. Against the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred Misc. Civil Application No. 31 of 2008 and same also came to be dismissed by Order dated 6/3/2009 by the District Judge – 1, Ambajogai. 7. In any case, if any Order is passed in 6 Misc. Civil Application No. 22 of 2000, petitioners can take appropriate steps challenging the Order passed under Order XX Rule 12 of Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the present Writ Petition and same is dismissed. [ K. K. TATED ] JUDGE knp/WP4818.09 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16