wp8241.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8241 OF 2010 RAMRAO DHAVJI RATHOD ... PETITIONER VERSUS MARUTI BALA INGALE AND ORS. ... RESPONDENTS. ... Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Mr. Salunke Sudarshan J Advocate for Respondent(s) : Mr. C.G. Patil, Adv. for R.No.1 (Absent). Mr V. C., Adv. for R.Nos. 2 and 3. CORAM : S.S. SHINDE,J. 3rd August, 2011. PER COURT: 1. This writ petition has been filed aggrieved by the Para 10 of the judgment and order dated 27th April, 2010 passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-1, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.16 of 2010. 2. This Court, on 18th April, 2011, heard this wp8241.10 2 petition for admission and issued notice for final disposal and further observed that direction as contained in para 10of the judgment of the appellate Court shall remain suspended. It appears that even on 18th April, 2011 Mr. C.G. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1remained absent. Also Mr. V.C. Patil, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 remained absent. 3. Since notice has been given for final disposal by this Court on 18th April, 2011, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved only by para 10 of the judgment passed by the Ad hoc District Judge-1, Ambajogai, Dist. Beed in Misc. Civil Appeal No.16 of 2010, which reads thus: "10. Main controversy remains about the wp8241.10 3 entitlement of appellant to stake the claim of sugar cane crop. I think this controversy is left for the decision of the trial Court. It is further directed that the Managing Director of Sugar Factory to deposit the disputed amount in the Court and trial Court will deal with the deposited amount on the basis of evidence. In the result, I proceed to pass the following order." 5. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was no any pleading or prayer either in the application which was filed under O.39 R.1 & 2 of CPC or Misc. Civil Appeal filed by the respondent No.1. Therefore, there was no occasion for the appellate Court to make observations that the main controversy remains about the entitlement of the appellant to stake claim of sugar cane crop. The appellate Court further observed that said controversy is left for the decision of the trial Court. Further direction is given that the Managing Director of Sugar Factory should deposit the disputed amount in the Court and trial Court will deal with the wp8241.10 4 deposited amount on the basis of evidence. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the sugar factory was not party to the proceedings. There was no pleadings to that effect and there was no any relief prayed by the respondent No.1. However, the Court on its own has unnecessarily made certain observations in para 10 of the judgment and directions are given to the Managing Director of the Sugar Factory to deposit the amount. It is contention of the Counsel for the petitioner that the sugar cane has already been given to the sugar factory in the name of Ramrao Dhavji Rathod, who is petitioner herein. Therefore, no such direction should have been given by the appellate Court to the Managing Director of Sugar Factory to deposit the said amount in the trial Court. 6. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 is not present. Even no reply is filed by respondent No.1. From perusal of the pleadings in the petition, annexures thereto and para 10 of the impugned wp8241.10 5 judgment, it clearly emerges that there was no occasion for the Ad hoc District Judge, Ambajogai to make aforesaid observations in para 10 of the impugned judgment. The appellate Court while exercising powers has exceeded its jurisdiction and travelled beyond the pleadings and prayers and thereby granted the relief, which was not even prayed for. 7. In the result, para 10 of the impugned judgment stands quashed and set aside. The remaining part of the judgment is maintained. The concerned Court while drawing decree, should take into consideration that para 10 of the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside by this Court. The petitioner is free to make an application before the trial Court for releasing the amount towards sugar cane price since the sugar cane is supplied by the petitioner to the sugar factory in his name. The trial Court to decide such application in wp8241.10 6 the light of aforesaid observations of this Court. Rule made absolute in the afore said terms. W.P. stands disposed of. [ S.S. SHINDE ] JUDGE. ... PLK/*