1 WP 5122.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5122 OF 2011 Bajirao S/o Namdev Paval Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Syed Nazir S/o Syed Kasam Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. 2. Syed Khatunbee W/o Syed Rasul (Died) through L.Rs. : Smt.Shahajan W/o Gaful Shaikh Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. 3. Sonabai W/o Laxman Pawal (Died ) through L.Rs. : 3-A. Laxman S/o Kondiba Pawal Age : 70 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. 3-B. Jijabai W/o Laxman Pawal 2 WP 5122.2011 - [ J ] Age : 45 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. 3-C. Patilbuva S/o Laxman Pawal Age : 42 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. 3-D. Uttam S/o Laxman Pawal Age : $0 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. 3-E. Bapurao S/o Laxman Pawal Age : #8 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. 3-F. Balu S/o Laxman Pawal Age : 35 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. 3-G. Mainabai D/o Laxman Pawal Age : 33 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. 4. Thakubai W/o Namdeo Malekar Age : 40 Yrs., Occ. Household, R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. 5. Aba S/o Namdeo Pawal 3 WP 5122.2011 - [ J ] Age : 60 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. 6. Trimbak S/o Namdeo Pawal Age : 55 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. 7. Mohan S/o Malku Gondkar Age : 50 Yrs., Occ. Agril., R/o : Chumbli, Tq. Patoda, Dist.: Beed. .... RESPONDENTS Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate holding for Mr. B.A.Shinde, Advocate for the Petitioner. Miss. C.N.Lahare, Advocate for the Resp.No. 1. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 10/08/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 4 WP 5122.2011 - [ J ] 3. The present respondent no. 1 had filed Regular Civil Suit for partition and separate possession. The trial Court decreed the Suit. Aggrieved thereby, the present petitioner filed Appeal along with stay application before the District Court, Beed. The stay petition was rejected. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 10267 of 2010 in this Court. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court directing the petitioner to file private paper book by 15/3/2011 and the District Judge was directed to decide the proceedings by 30/6/2011. It seems that the paper book was not filed within the stipulated time as directed by this Court. The petitioner filed an application [ Exh. 31 ] seeking permission to file paper book on 29/6/2011. The District Judge – 2, Beed rejected the said application and dismissed the Appeal for non compliance of the order. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition is filed. 4. Mr. Sachin Deshmukh, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the paper book could not be filed in view of the fact that the Advocate was changed and all the papers were with the Advocate at Beed. New Advocate was appointed, who was not acquainted with the matter and he had prepared the paper book with the available documents and thereafter immediately an application was filed for acceptance of the paper book. The learned counsel contends that the matter involves invaluable 5 WP 5122.2011 - [ J ] rights of the parties in an immovable property and the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to contest the matter on merits. 5. Miss. Lahare, the learned counsel for the respondent opposes the application and submits that the petitioner is guilty of non compliance of the order passed by this Court. Even otherwise the District Judge did not have jurisdiction to enlarge the time which was given by this Court. The petitioner is trying to prolong the matter and the respondent, in whose favour the decree is passed, is not allowed to enjoy the fruits of the decree. 6. From the record, it appears that the petitioner failed to file paper book as directed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 10267 of 2010. It would also appear that the delay that is caused, is not inordinate one. The petitioner has explained the circumstances. Even otherwise, the dispute revolves round the immovable properties. The contentious issues are to be decided by the District Court. The District Court is the last fact finding Court. Non filing of the paper book within the stipulated period does not appear to be intentional one. 7. In view of the above, I am inclined to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner. At the same time, the petitioner deserves to 6 WP 5122.2011 - [ J ] be mulct for causing delay. 8. In the result, I pass the following order. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The application [ Exh. 31 ] is allowed on condition that the petitioner submits paper book within the period of two ( 2 ) weeks from today i.e. 24/8/2011 and deposits costs of Rs. 2,000/- [ Rupees Two Thousand only ] to be paid to the respondent no. 1 on or before two ( 2 ) weeks. 9. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Authenticated copy be given. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP 5122.2011 - [ J ]