Jalna District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd, Jalna Through Its Manager v. Shaikh Jabbar Sk. Karim And Others

{1} drp

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 212 OF 2015 Jalna District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., APPLICANT Santoshi Mata Road, Jalna, Through its General Manager

VERSUS

1.

Shaikh Jabbar Sk. Karim RESPONDENTS Age - Major, Occ - Business, 2.

Rizwana Begum d/o Sk. Karim, Age - Major, Occ - Household 3.

Shaikh Nisar Sk. Karim, Age - Major, Occ - Business 4.

Shaikh Nausad Sk Karim, Age - Major, Occ - Business, 5.

Mahmuda Begum Anwar Husen, Age - Major, Occ - Household, 6.

Mahmunissa Begum Abu Bakkar, Age - Major, Occ - Household, 7.

Saultana Begum Fakir Ahmed, Age - Major, Occ - Household, All R/o Lane No.12/1, Room No.1276, Bandra Mumbai 400 051 8.

Sanjivani d/o Ramkrushna Ghogre, Now Sanjivani w/o Anant Tare, Age - Major, Occ - Household R/o Kola Taluka - Sailu, District - Parbhani GPA Shri Kalyan Ramsrushna Gogre, R/o Gandhi Chaman, Juna Jalna 9.

Vilas Vithalrao Kharat, Age - Major, Occ - Agriculture

{2} R/o Nutan Wasahat Ambad, District - Jalna 10.

Shaikh Gafoor Sk Kadar, Age - Major, Occ - Business 11.

Shaikh Madar s/o Sk Bandu, Age - Major, Occ - Business 12.

Shaikh Kasam s/o Sk. Bandu Age - Major, Occ - Busienss, Nos 10 to 12 R/o Patharnagar, N. R. Bharat nagar, Bandra, West Mumbai 51, Room No.227 13.

Smt. Sugrabi w/o Baba Age - Major, Occ - Household, R/o Kasab Mohalla, Ambad District - Jalna 14.

Liquidator Samart Kukut Palan Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Lalwadi, Taluka - Ambad .......

Mr. B.N. Patil, Advocate for the applicant Mr. Amol Gandhi, Advocate for respondent No.9 Mr. M. K. Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No.10 Mr. S. B. Ghute, Advocate for respondent No.13 Mr. M. L. Dharashiv, Advocate for respondent No.14 .......

[CORAM : SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] DATE : 22 nd JANUARY, 2016 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1.

Rule. Rule made returnable forth with and heard learned advocates for the appearing parties finally with consent.

{3} 2.

Learned advocate for the applicant, on instructions, seeks leave to delete respondents No. 8, 11 and 12 from the array of respondents. Leave granted to delete respondents No. 8, 11 and 12 at the risk and peril of the applicant.

3.

Heard learned advocate for the parties. Learned advocate for the applicant bank states that a joint property had been mortgaged with respondent No.14, a co-operative society. 4.

A suit had been instituted by present respondents No.1 to 7 for partition and possession in respect of certain properties, including the mortgaged property. The suit was decreed. 5.

Execution proceedings in respect of aforesaid decree are said to be pending, in which present applicant had put in objection. Respondent No.14 in the execution is stated to have got possession of 14 acre of land.

6.

It appears that second appeal No.262 of 2001 had been preferred before this court by judgment debtors - present respondents No.1 to 7 in execution proceedings against decree of partition. In an interim order in said second appeal, this court had under order dated 4th January, 2008 restrained the parties

{4} from taking further steps in execution proceedings over and above the execution which had already taken place. 7.

It appears that the applicant bank has settled its dues and does not want to prosecute its objections.

8.

In aforesaid execution proceedings, as referred to above, the objections were sought to be withdrawn by present applicant. However, in view of order dated 4th January, 2008, referred to above, the executing court appears to have perceived some difficulty in allowing the application for withdrawing objection filed by the applicant.

9.

Having regard to aforesaid, the interim order, which is thought to have posed certain difficulty to the executing court to allow the application, does not appear to be an impediment since it is withdrawal of objection to the execution. 10.

In view of the same, civil revision application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "C". The objection by the applicant is thus stands withdrawn. Civil revision application stands disposed of. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, J.] drp/cra212-15