Bombay High CourtCAW/1007/2019dismissedrule discharged

Nitin S/O Yashwant Takle v. Tukaram S/O Balaji Kshirsagar

2019-04-26Hon'Ble Shri Justice Z.A. Haq2 pages

1 caw1007.19

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAW) NO. 1007/2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1456/2019 Nitin Y. Takle ..VS..

Tukaram B. Kshirsagar - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.A. Bhide, Advocate for the applicant/petitioner CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 26/04/2019 Heard.

By the order dated 22/02/2019 while issuing notice, this Court granted interim order in favour of the petitioner and stayed the execution of the decree, however, interim order was granted on condition that the petitioner shall deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- with the registry of this Court till 30/03/2019. Now, this civil application is filed on 02/04/2019 praying that the order passed on 22/02/2019 be modified.

According to the petitioner, one Sunanda Udhoji was the landlady of the petitioner and the petitioner had been paying rent to her @ Rs. 250 /- per month. On 22/02/2019, it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Sunanda Udhoji died sometime in 2010 or 2011 and after her death, no one had come forward to receive rent. Considering the fact that the petitioner had been enjoying the property

2 caw1007.19 without paying anything to anybody since last 8 to 9 years, this Court had imposed condition of depositing an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Now by this application, the petitioner has come out with the case that he has paid rent to Sunanda Udhoji till 2015. The photo copies of some money order receipts are produced on record alongwith this civil application to substantiate this contention.

Be that as it may, the grounds raised in the civil application are not sufficient to modify the interim order dated 22/02/2019 specially considering the fact that the civil application is filed on 02/04/2019 i.e. after 30/03/2019 by which date the petitioner was required to deposit the amount. The civil application is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Ansari