Baif Development Research Foundation, Thru. Authorized Officer Mr Krishnaji Mahadev Kokate v. Gopichand Mukinda Kadbane And ORS
1 36) cp363-16.doc sas
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.363 OF 2016 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO.213 OF 2017 Baif Development Research Foundation ..Petitioner.
V/s.
Gopichand Mukiunda Kadabane & Ors.
..Respondents.
Mr.P.G. Sarda for the Petitioner in both the petitions. Mr.V.S.Talkute for Respondent No.9 in both petitions. CORAM : K.K.TATED, J.
DATED : 7 JUNE, 2017 P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2.
By these contempt petitions, the petitioner alleges that the respondents violated the injunction order passed by the learned Tahsildar, Havel, District Pune restraining the respondents from disturbing the petitioner's possession in respect of the suit property.
2 36) cp363-16.doc He submits that the petitioner by letter dated 14 May, 2016 requested concerned police station requested to take action against the respondents for interfering with their possession of the suit property as per the injunction order passed by the learned Tahsildar. He submits that the concerned police officer failed to take any action, hence they preferred MCA/5(2)(1)/03/2016 and MCA/5(2) (1)/04/2016 under section 21 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906. He submitted that both the applications have been filed by him on 22 June, 2016 and the same are pending for final disposal on merits. The learned counsel submits that he has received instructions from the petitioner not to press the contempt petitions, but seek directions to the Tahsildar to dispose of the applications as early as possible on its own merits.
3.
On the other hand, Mr.Talkute, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.9 vehemently opposed the present contempt petitions. He submitted that he requires some time to file reply. It is to be noted that in the present proceedings, the contemnors were duly served by Advocate's notice in 2016. Till
3 36) cp363-16.doc today, the respondents failed to file the reply. Hence, request made by the respondents for adjournment is rejected. 4.
The learned counsel for respondent No.9 submits that the present contempt petitions is filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, hence there is no question for issuing directions to the authorities to decide the pending applications, if any, as early as possible and on its own merits. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as per his instructions, the impugned order passed by the Tahsildar on 10 May, 2016 is vacated later on.
5.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is to be noted that in the present proceedings though the petitions were served on the respondents by private notice in the year 2016, they failed to file their reply till date. Apart from that petitioner is not pressing both the petitions. Petitioner is seeking directions to decide the application filed by them under section 21 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act. Court can issue direction under Article 215 of the
4 36) cp363-16.doc Constitution of India. Hence the objections raised by advocate for the respondents are not maintainable.
6.
Considering the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has received instructions not to press the contempt petitions, except for seeking directions to the Tahsildar to decide his applications under section 21 on its own merits, the following order is passed:- (a) Tahsildar, Havel, District Pune is directed to decide the petitioner's MCA/5(2)(1)/03/2016 and MCA/5(2)(1)/04/ 2016 filed under section 21 of the Mamlatdar Courts Act, 1906 as early as possible but in any case within six months from the receipt of the copy of this Court;
(b) The contempt petitions stand disposed of as withdrawn. Parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. (K.K.TATED, J.)