Bombay High CourtWP/11434/2018disposed offdismissed for default

Kantabai Uttamrao Deshmukh v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2018-11-21Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin Jamdar2 pages

WP 11434.2018.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 921 WRIT PETITION NO. 11434 OF 2018 KANTABAI UTTAMRAO DESHMUKH

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Kale Ajeet B.

AGP for Respondents : Mr. S W Munde ...

CORAM : N.M. JAMDAR, J.

Dated : 21 November 2018 ...

ORAL ORDER :- Te petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned District Judge, Jalna in LAR no.167 of 1996 dated 7.3.2011. Te petitioner had led evidence and it was found that there was no sufficient evidence to enhance the compensation as sought for. Te proceedings have been finally disposed of. Te petitioner, therefore, has a remedy of a first appeal. 2.

Reliance of the petitioner on the order passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.9550 of 2012 and connected matters dated 31.1.2013, to contend that the writ petition be entertained, is not correct. In the said case, due to extreme poverty the petitioners had not adduced any evidence and an opportunity was given to them by this Court. aaa/-

WP 11434.2018.odt Present is the case where evidence was led and analyzed and not found sufficient. In the circumstances, writ petition cannot be entertained and is rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that decree is not yet been given. Tere is no specific averment on oath in the petition to that regard. Even assuming said position is incorrect, which does not appear to be plausible, nothing stops the petitioner from making a request to the learned judge in writing for the said purpose. 3.

Writ Petition accordingly rejected.

( N.M. JAMDAR, J. ) ...

aaa/- aaa/-