Bombay High CourtCAW/2560/2015rejected at admission stage

Shri Dattatraya S/O Vishnu Rane And 3 Others v. The State Of Maharashtra, Through Its Principal Secretary, Mumbai And 19 Others

2016-01-04Hon'Ble Shri Justice P.B. Varale2 pages

1 caw2560.15.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

Civil Application (CAW) No. 2560 of 2015 in Writ Petition No. 87 of 2015 [Dattatraya s/o Vishnu Rane and ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders Shri D. N. Dani, Advocate for the applicants/original respondent nos. 15 to 17 Shri A. C. Khare, Advocate for the petitioners Shri M. V. Samarth, Advocate for respondent no. 19 Shri P. S. Khubalkar, Advocate for respondent nos. 13, 14 and 18 Shri R. P. Masurkar, Advocate for respondent no. 5 Shri S. Zia Qazi, Advocate for respondent no. 12 Mrs. M. H. Deshmukh, AGP for respondent nos. 1, 2 & 4 CORAM : Prasanna B. Varale, J.

DATE : 4-1-2016.

Heard Shri Dani, learned counsel for the applicants.

It is stated in the application that one Shri Vishwanath Haware and the legal heirs of one Shri Jagannath Haware are the legal representatives of Shri Eknath Haware and these persons are the beneficiaries of the properties of Shri Eknath Haware. The submission of learned counsel is that to avoid any controversy, it would be necessary to add these persons as the party respondents to the present petition as he apprehends that they would alienate the property during the pendency of the present petition.

Perusal of the order passed by this Court dated 14-1-2015 makes it more than clear that the Court .....2/-

2 caw2560.15.odt while issuing notice of final disposal observed in clear and unambiguous terms that any alienation of properties by the respondent nos. 6 to 19 shall be subject to further order of the Court. (emphasis supplied) In view of this quote, no ground is made out to pass order in this application. The application thus, being meritless, deserves to be rejected and the same is, accordingly, rejected.

Civil Application (CAW) No. 2562 of 2015 The present application is moved for seeking early hearing of the petition. The petition is filed in the year 2015. There are number of the petitions awaiting their turn which are filed much prior to the present petition. No ground is made out for grant of early hearing or out of turn hearing. Hence, the application stands rejected. However, liberty is granted to move after one year.

JUDGE wasnik ...../-