Mr. Manoj Mangilal Jain v. Ms. Hansa Lola Prasad Bhoravat And ORS

1 909 WP 9831-16.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9831 OF 2016 Mr. Manoj Mangilal Jain

...Petitioner

Versus

Ms. Hansa Lola Prasad Bhoravat & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Ashok Pande for Petitioner.

CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR J.

DATE : OCTOBER 10, 2019 P.C. :

1.

Heard Mr. Ashok Pande, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2.

The petitioner who was the original defendant No.11 in Long Cause Suit No.5186/2002, has preferred this petition, being aggrieved by certain observations in the Judgment, by which said suit came to be dismissed on 7th May 2016.

3.

It is submitted that the respondent No.1 (original plaintiff) has assailed the Judgment and decree in the said suit by filing First Appeal No.1047/2016. The petitioner herein had also been impleaded as a party respondent in the said appeal.

4.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by certain observations in the said Judgment, which are mdp

2 909 WP 9831-16.odt enumerated at Exh.N (page No.395) of the Petition. 5.

The petition in the present form assailing the observations in a Judgment, which is impugned in an appeal, can not be entertained. Even otherwise, in view of the provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Appellate Court is empowered to pass such appropriate orders as the case may require, and, thus, the petitioner can not be said to have no remedy, if he feels aggrieved by certain observations, though not by the findings of the trial court. 6.

In the aforesaid view of the matter, the petition stands dismissed. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) mdp