1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 744 OF 2010 *** Uttam S/o Kishan Satpute (Died) through his L.Rs. Smt. Chandrabhagabai W/o Uttam Satpute and others Versus Raghunath S/o Kishan Satpute and another *** Mr. P. P. Khandagale Patil, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. A. D. Kasliwal, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. V. B. Ghatge, A. G. P. for the Respondent No.2. *** 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith, heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. This petition takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad dated 20th January, 2010 below Exhibit-20 in Special Darkhast No.52 of 2000. Counsel for the Petitioners submit that Respondent Raghunath is the elder brother of Uttam. Uttam is no more. Petitioner No.1 widow, along with her children, is residing in the said premises. If possession is taken over, the petitioners would be put on the street literally. He also submitted that the present petitioners have filed Regular Civil Suit No.820 of 2005 for perpetual injunction 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. pertaining to the said property. Said suit is pending. In that suit, temporary injunction has been granted by the trial Court in favour of the present petitioners. According to him, the order impugned is illegal and requires to be quashed and set aside. 4. Learned counsel Mr. Kasliwal for the Respondent No.1 makes available compilation of the judgment and orders. Two save time, I am listing all these judgments and orders herein below. (i) Judgment in Regular Civil Suit No.820 of 1990. This suit was filed by Respondent No.1 Raghunath on 29th June, 1990 for declaration and possession in respect of Municipal House No.1-29-36 having area of 1280 Sq.ft. in C.T.S. No.10403 on Sheet No.19, located at Kachiwada, Chelipura, Aurangabad. This suit, after recording the evidence, came to be decreed in favour of Respondent No.1 by the learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad. Date of the judgment and decree is 21st October, 1999. Suit is decreed with costs. Declaration is granted in favour of Respondent No.1. Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 in that suit were directed to hand over possession of the premises mentioned in 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. the decree on or before 20th January, 2000. Direction is also given against the City Survey Officer for taking entries in appropriate property registration card. (ii) Decree passed by learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad in Regular Civil Suit No.820 of 1990 was challenged by present petitioners by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.25 of 2000. Said judgment and decree is not on record, but, then, after dismissal of the said Regular Civil Appeal, second appeal No.257 of 2003 was filed by the present petitioners in this High Court. Copy of the order passed by this Court in the second appeal No.257 of 2003 is on record [Coram: S.B.Deshmukh, J.], dated 24th August, 2004. From this order, it appears that second appeal No.257 of 2003 with Civil Application NO.2822 of 2003, after hearing the parties, is dismissed by this Court. 5. Thus, according to learned counsel for the Respondent no.1, decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No.820 of 1990, in favour of Respondent No.1 has attributed finality up till High Court. This decree is put into execution before the executing Court and order passed by the executing Court is legal and proper. He also points out the order 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Aurangabad below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Suit No.820 of 2005, filed by the present Petitioners. According to him, this temporary injunction was granted by the trial Court limited till 17th of December, 2005. In other words, from 18st December, 2005 there is no temporary injunction running against the Respondent No.1. Second submission of the learned counsel for the Respondent no.1 is that this temporary injunction granted is only for alleged obstruction of the petitioners' possession of the property mentioned in Regular Civil Suit No.820 of 2005. There also learned Judge has observed that present Respondent No.1 shall not obstruct the possession of the petitioners, without due course of law. According to counsel for the Respondent No.1, there is no blanket protection in favour of the petitioner, below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Suit No.820 of 2005. 6. I have given due consideration to the submissions on behalf of the parties. There is a valid decree passed in favour of the Respondent No.1 by the competent civil Court in Regular Civil Suit No. 820 of 1990. Said 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. decree has attributed finality and/ or upheld by the High Court. It is not the case of the Petitioners that they have challenged the said order, passed by the High Court in the appeal, before the Supreme Court. Decree in favour of the Respondent No.1 needs to be satisfied in accordance with the provisions of law. I have given due consideration to the grounds raised by the present Petitioners in the application purported filed under section 47. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, in my view, order impugned cannot be said to be illegal or perverse, to be interfered with in extraordinary jurisdiction. 7. Writ petition, being devoid of substance, stands dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. 8. Ad-interim relief granted by this Court stands vacated. 9. At this stage, counsel for the Petitioner seeks one months time. Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 opposes the prayer. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am inclined to grant two weeks time on the condition that petitioner No.1 shall file usual undertaking before this Court. Undertaking to be filed within one 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. week from today. 10. Status-quo earlier granted, to stand continued till 23rd March, 2010 on the condition that the Petitioner No.1 shall file appropriate undertaking in this Court within one week and on further condition that the Petitioners shall not create third party interest and/ or part with the possession, except Respondent No.1. 11. Authentic copy is permitted to the requesting parties, as per usual procedure. [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:09/03/2010. ans/744