Mr. Ajij Ul Haq Arif Ui Haq v. Mr. Naval Pagadiwala Through Poa Holder, Shri Suhas Tingre

WP10426_16.sxw

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10426 OF 2016 Ajij Ul Haq Arif Ul Haq ...

Petitioner Vs.

Naval Pagadiwala through his POA Holder Suhas Vijayrao Tingre ...

Respondent Mr. A. Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Rohan S. Mirpury for Petitioner. CORAM : R. G. KETKAR, J.

DATE :

OCTOBER 01, 2016 P.C. :

Heard Mr. Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel for petitioner at length.

2.

By this Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner, hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff', has challenged the judgment and order dated 05.08.2016 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-1, Pune in Civil Miscellaneous Application No.468 of 2014. By that order, the learned District Judge allowed the application made by the respondent / appellant in the appeal and re-admitted Regular Civil Appeal No.375 of 2011 on its original stage subject to costs of Rs.20,000/-. Costs were to be deposited within 8 days from the date of the order. Mr. Sakhare states that respondent has deposited the costs within the stipulated period.

3.

Mr. Sakhare has taken me through the Rojnama of the Appeal and submitted that respondent-appellant in the appeal is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Respondent herein had filed appeal through Power of Attorney Suhas Vijayrao Tingre. The learned trial Judge has decreed the Suit under Sections 16(1)(n) and 16(1)(e) of the Maharashtra Rent 1/2

WP10426_16.sxw Control Act, 1999. Respondent preferred appeal through the Power of Attorney and took out application for stay. That application was rejected by the appellate Court and the said order was confirmed by the Apex Court. In pursuance thereof, plaintiff has obtained possession of the suit premises. He submitted that perusal of the Rojnama would indicate that respondent is not interested in pursuing the appeal. 4.

Having regard to the fact that the impugned order is purely discretionary as also respondent has deposited the costs within the stipulated period, I do not find that this is a fit case for invocation of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition fails and the same is dismissed. The learned District Judge is requested to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 6 months from production of the authenticated copy of this order. Parties will extend full co-operation for the earlier disposal of the appeal. Order accordingly.

(R. G. KETKAR, J.) Minal Parab 2/2