Anand Ganpat Padole v. Narsee Premji Patel And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5281 OF 2016 Anand Ganpat Padole Age: 65 years, Occ. Business, R/o Juna Mangalwar Basar, Ahmednagar, Tq.& Dist. Ahmednagar.

... Petitioner Vs.

1.

Narsee Premji Patel Age: 64 years, Occ. Business, R/o Tilak Road, Opp. Wadia Park, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.

2.

Mrs. Yeshoda Maganlal Patel, Age: 66 years, Occ. Household, R/o Tilak Road, Opp. Wadia Park, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.

3.

Mrs. Laxmi Narsee Patel, Age: 56 years, Occ. Household, R/o Tilak Road, Opp. Wadia Park, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.

4.

Mrs. Kusum Sitaram Sable, Age: 64 years, Occ. Household, R/o Kusum Sadan, Agarkar Mala Behind Laxmi Furniture, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar.

5.

Kashinath Ganpat Padole Deceased through legal heirs.

5a.

Rukhmini Kashinath Padole Age: 70 years, Occ. Household 5b.

Rajendra Kashinath Padole Age: 51 years, Occ. Business 5c.

Mahendra Kashinath Padole, Age: 37 years, Occu. Business 5d.

Nanda Dilip Borude, Age: 58 years, Occu. Household

5e.

Manda Dattatraya Shinde, Age: 47 years, Occu. Household 5f.

Manisha Mukud Raskar Age: 45 years, Occu. Household 6.

Ramkrishna Ganpat Padole Age: 66 years, Occ. Business No.5(a) to 5(f) and 6 are R/o C/o Shubham Collection, Samsung Dept. Padole Colony, Tilak Road, Ahmednagar.

... Respondents ---- Mr. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for the petitioner. ---- CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.

DATE : 08-06-2016.

Per Court :

1.

Heard Mr. P.S. Brahme, learned advocate for the petitioner.

2.

The petitioner is purportedly aggrieved by the rejection of application exhibit-72 for framing an issue as referred to therein is before this court. The appellate court appears to have considered that since there are no pleadings, the issues based on arguments cannot be framed and as such went on to reject the application.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the observations of this court under paragraphs no. 5 and 6 and purports to point out that it has been left open for the defendants

to take up such contentions, arguments and submissions as are deemed appropriate with reference to contents as are already appearing in the written statement.

4.

Thus, the efficacy of those observations cannot be said to be in any way attenuated or affected by rejection of the request under application exhibit-72. In any case, if the petitioner feels and thinks that he is aggrieved by the rejection of the applicationexhibit-72, it is open for him to take up such grounds / contentions in further proceedings having regard to section 105 of Civil Procedure Code. Writ Petition for said purpose does not deserve consideration.

5.

In view of aforesaid, the same stands rejected. (SUNIL P. DESHMUKH) JUDGE9