IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION DRAFT DECREE LODGING NO. 30 OF 2013 IN APPEAL NO. 220 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1769 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 1199 OF 2009 Narayan Danabhai Parmar & Ors. ..Appellants. Versus Dhansukh Ramji Rathod & Ors. ..Respondents. Coram : D.R. Talekar, Accounts Ofocer (O.S.) / I/c. Decree Department, High Court, Bombay. Date : 18th July, 2022. None for the Appellants. None for the Respondents. To-day’s meeting is adjourned meeting of 11th April, 2022 for directions. Upon perusal of the record and proceedings, it is found that upon application of M/s. Kirit N. Damania & Co., Advocates for Respondent No.1 (Orig. Plaintiff in the Suit) after following due process, Registry engrossed Consent Decree dated 31st January, 2011 (Coram : Mohit S. Shah, C.J. & S.J. Kathawalla, J.). ….2/- : 2 : Upon perusal of the minutes dated 12th January, 2018 of the then Ld. Prothonotary & Senior Master, it is found that the Ld. Advocate for Respondent No.1 (Orig. Plaintiff) filed a preacipe dated 16th June, 2017 for handing over the engrossed Consent Decree dated 31st January, 2011 to the Respondent for stamping. On 12th January, 2018, the Ld. the then Prothonotary & Senior Master observed which is reproduced hereinbelow:- ““It appears from the record that Advocate for the Respondent, Original Plaintiff filed Praeacipe dated 16.06.2017 for handing over the engrossed consent decree dated 31.01.2011 to the Respondent for stamping. Heard the Ld. Counsel for both the parties. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/Orig. Plaintiff submitted that in view of Clause 2(i) of Order dated 31.01.2011, property at Dahisar in the building named as “Kedarnath” which was earlier given on rent to M/s. Aparna Motors for Toyota showroom comprising of basement, ground floor and first Floor is alloted to the Original Plaintiff Dhansukh Ramji Rathod in Suit Nos. 1198 of 2009, 1199 of 2009, 151 of 2010 and Defendant No.1 in Suit No. 1422 of 2009. According to the Respondent / Orig. Plaintiff, not further documents are required and decree can be certified for stamp duty. This submission of the Respondent/Orig. Plaintiff is strongly opposed on behalf of the Appellants/Original Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 contending that by Writ Petition bearing No. 4111 of 2014 filed by the Co-operative Society, Society had challenged Order passed by the Dy. Registrar, Co-operative Society dated 18.04.2013 which is pertaining to the membership of the Original Plaintiff in respect of same property, which is involved in the present dispute. In Para 8 of the Judgment dated 14.09.2015, following observations are made : “8. Although it is the case of the Respondent No. 3 that in accordance with the order of the Division Bench, the Respondent was not required to execute any further documents. I find that clause 2(1)9ix) clearly contemplates that documents in support of retirement of Respondent No. 3 were ….3/- : 3 : required to be executed since the words used in the Order are very clear. On a careful reading of the consent terms, it is clear that without execution of necessary documents, the Order of Court did not contemplate conveyance or transfer of the property from the firm to an individual partner. It was submitted by Mr. Kanade and correctly so, that an instrument of transfer was necessary to transfer the property. Needless to mention that any instrument of transfer will have to be stamped with applicable stamp duty.” According to the Respondent/Orig. Plaintiff, since Appellants/Orig. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were not parties to the said Petition, Appellants/Orig. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 cannot take shelter of the observations of the Hon’ble Court. It is admitted position that Judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 4111 of 2014 was challenged before the Apex Court and Apex Court has granted status quo. The Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/Orig. Plaintiff referred and relied upon the Judgment reported in AIR 2004 SC 326 in the matter of Hindustan Lever and Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. In which the Hon’ble Apex Court referred Section 2(g) of the Bombay Stamp Act in which “conveyance” has defined which includes every decree or final order of any Civil Court. However, in the reported Judgment, there was dispute in respect of amalgamation of company. Therefore, this Judgment is not helpful to the Respondent/Orig. Plaintiff. In view of observations made in Writ Petition No. 4111 of 2014, Praecipe filed by the Respondent/Orig. Plaintiff is not maintainable at this stage unless the matter is finally decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court.”” Hence, as per the record SLP No. 1692 of 2017 is pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court for consideration and disposal. Registry also filed the Case Status Report of the said SLP No. 1692 of 2017 and as per the said Report dated 16th July, 2022, said SLP is still pending before the Hon’ble Apex Court. ….4/- : 4 : In view of the above, to-day’s meeting is adjourned SINE- DIE till dispose off above stated SLP. Sd/- Accounts Ofocer/ I/C. Decree Department, High Court, Bombay.