Sulochanabai Prakash Karnavat v. Banubai Abdeali Bohari And Others

{1}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3223 OF 2014 Sulochanabai w/o Prakash Karnavat, age: 66 years, Occ: Household, at present R/o Beauticians Town, 226, Golani Market, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon.

Petitioner

Versus

01 Banubai Abdeali Bohari, age: major, Occ: Household, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

02 Kausarali Abdeali Bohari, age: major, Occ: Business, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

01 Banubai Abdeali Bohari, age: major, Occ: Household, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

02 Kausarali Abdeali Bohari, age: major, Occ: Business, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

03 Johar Abdeali Bohari, age: major, Occ: Business, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

04 Abbas Abdeali Bohari, age: major, Occ: Business,

{2} R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

05 Juzar Abdeali Bohari, age: major, Occ: Business, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

02 Aziz Abdeali Bohari, age: major, Occ: Business, R/o CTS No.4747-B, Veer Savarkar Marg, Dhule, District Dhule.

07 Prakash Babulal Karnavat, (Dead), through legal heir:

7(a) Darshan Prakash Karnavat, age: major, Occ: service, R/o Dhule, District Dhule.

Respondents Mr.V.T.Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner Respondent No.1 is reported to be dead.

Mr.A.S.Yenegure, advocate holding for Mr.P.S.Patil, advocate for Respondents No.2 to 6.

Mr.V.J.Dixit, Senior Counsel i/by Mr.S.V.Nyayadhish, advocate for Respondent No.7(a).

CORAM : S.B.SHUKRE, J.

DATE : 02nd February, 2017 PER COURT:

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for Respondents No.2 to 6 and learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.7(a). Respondent No.1 is reported to be dead.

{3} It has been pointed out by learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.7(a) that the original plaintiffs i.e. Respondents No.2 to 6 and original defendant i.e. Respondent No.7(a) have settled their dispute by arriving at a compromise and now that the original plaintiffs are no longer willing to prosecute the suit having received possession of tenanted premises by them. It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No.7(a) that because of the finding recorded by the trial Court in the impugned order that the petitioner is not legally wedded wife of deceased Prakash Karnavat, great prejudice has been caused to the petitioner, not only in the suit, but also in other matters.

On perusal of the impugned order, I find that there is no finding categorically recorded by the trial Court that the petitioner is not legally wedded wife of deceased Prakash. Then, there is also subsequent development, as pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Respondent No.7(a). In view of the subsequent development in this matter, I do not find that anything has survived in this petition and same deserves to be disposed of accordingly subject to the clarification that the impugned order dated 24.02.2014, passed by the learned trial Court below Exhibit-87 in R.C.S. No.

{4} would be entitled to prove her status as legally wedded wife of deceased Prakash Karnavat, without being influenced by the order impugned in this petition. It is made clear that all the contentions of rival parties are kept open.

Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Pending Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of.

S.B.SHUKRE JUDGE adb/wp322314