Dr. Sitraram S/O. Girdharilal Agrawal v. Ratanlal Girdharilal Agrawal And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil Application (W) No. 2669/2017 in Writ Petition No. 4218 of 2015 Dr. Sitaram Girdharilal Agrawal V/s Ratanlal Girdharilal Agrawal & 5 others - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.R. Choudhari, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.J. Gilda, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 27/11/2017 Writ petition No. 4218/2015 was listed before the Court on 17/11/2017.

None appeared for the respondent, though served. Shri V.R. Choudhari, learned Advocate for the petitioner was heard and writ petition was disposed by order dated 17/11/2017, dictated in open Court.

Before the order could be signed, Shri A. J. Gilda learned advocate for the respondent No.1 mentioned that he was instructed to appear in the matter, however, because of some inadvertent mistake on the part of his clerk, Vakalatnama remained to be filed and the matter was unattended. It was mentioned that he had filed civil application praying for rehearing of the writ petition. The advocate for the respondent was permitted to circulate the civil application and accordingly the civil application

is listed.

Heard the learned advocates. The advocate for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the petitioner suppressed relevant fact from this Court that an application with same prayer is pending before the Trial Court. It is further submitted that as per the order passed by this Court in Appeal from Order no. 60/1986 on 3/12/1986, the respondent No.1 is having the right to lease out the property and if at all the property is to be leased out, the respondent No.1 be permitted to do so. The advocate for the petitioner has opposed the claim made by the respondent no.1 and has submitted that the order passed by this Court in Appeal from Order No.60/86 does not uphold the entitlement of the respondent No.1 either to be in possession of the property (physical or symbolical) or to lease out the property. It is submitted that this Court had only authorized the respondent No.1 to collect the amount of rent and the respondent was directed to deposit the amount of rent of 10 months in the form of National Savings certificates, with Court.

After considering the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties. I find that the order passed by this Court on 17/11/2017 is proper

and does not require any modification.

The Civil Application is disposed accordingly. JUDGE Nandurkar