Appellant is sister of respondents no. 1 to 4 who have sold
part of suit property (described as property no. 2) to respondents no. 5 to
8 and appellant is now apprehending that they may sell remaining
property (described as suit property no. 1) and thereby may create thirdparty
interest in and over it.
3. Learned counsel for respondents strenuously urged that
respondents no. 1 to 4 are in possession of remaining property. There is
no quarrel over that claim and appellant/plaintiff is claiming her 1/5th
share and separate possession.
4. Learned trial Judge has entered into discussion in paragraphs
12 and 13 of the impugned order in such a fashion as if he was deciding
the suit on merit. That was unnecessary and irrelevant for the purpose of
deciding an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Apprehension of appellant/plaintiff is not out of place and
remaining suit property needs to be protected and it cannot be allowed to
change its hands during the pendency of suit.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Appeal Against Order No. 98 of 2014
Sau Priya Prakash Deshmukh,
versus
Gajanan Bjagwantrao Deshmukh,
Coram : A. P. Bhangale, J
Dated : 21st July 2015
Citation;2016(2)MHLJ 143
1. Heard. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.
2. Appellant is sister of respondents no. 1 to 4 who have sold
part of suit property (described as property no. 2) to respondents no. 5 to
8 and appellant is now apprehending that they may sell remaining
property (described as suit property no. 1) and thereby may create thirdparty
interest in and over it.
3. Learned counsel for respondents strenuously urged that
respondents no. 1 to 4 are in possession of remaining property. There is
no quarrel over that claim and appellant/plaintiff is claiming her 1/5th
share and separate possession.
4. Learned trial Judge has entered into discussion in paragraphs
12 and 13 of the impugned order in such a fashion as if he was deciding
the suit on merit. That was unnecessary and irrelevant for the purpose of
deciding an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Apprehension of appellant/plaintiff is not out of place and
remaining suit property needs to be protected and it cannot be allowed to
change its hands during the pendency of suit.
5. In the result, appeal is allowed. Application of appellant/
plaintiff (exhibit 5) is allowed in terms of prayer clause contained in it.
No order as to costs. Learned trial Judge shall endeavour to decide the
suit on merit as early as possible.
A. P. BHANGALE, J
Print Page
part of suit property (described as property no. 2) to respondents no. 5 to
8 and appellant is now apprehending that they may sell remaining
property (described as suit property no. 1) and thereby may create thirdparty
interest in and over it.
3. Learned counsel for respondents strenuously urged that
respondents no. 1 to 4 are in possession of remaining property. There is
no quarrel over that claim and appellant/plaintiff is claiming her 1/5th
share and separate possession.
4. Learned trial Judge has entered into discussion in paragraphs
12 and 13 of the impugned order in such a fashion as if he was deciding
the suit on merit. That was unnecessary and irrelevant for the purpose of
deciding an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Apprehension of appellant/plaintiff is not out of place and
remaining suit property needs to be protected and it cannot be allowed to
change its hands during the pendency of suit.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Appeal Against Order No. 98 of 2014
Sau Priya Prakash Deshmukh,
versus
Gajanan Bjagwantrao Deshmukh,
Coram : A. P. Bhangale, J
Dated : 21st July 2015
Citation;2016(2)MHLJ 143
1. Heard. Admit. Heard forthwith by consent of parties.
2. Appellant is sister of respondents no. 1 to 4 who have sold
part of suit property (described as property no. 2) to respondents no. 5 to
8 and appellant is now apprehending that they may sell remaining
property (described as suit property no. 1) and thereby may create thirdparty
interest in and over it.
3. Learned counsel for respondents strenuously urged that
respondents no. 1 to 4 are in possession of remaining property. There is
no quarrel over that claim and appellant/plaintiff is claiming her 1/5th
share and separate possession.
4. Learned trial Judge has entered into discussion in paragraphs
12 and 13 of the impugned order in such a fashion as if he was deciding
the suit on merit. That was unnecessary and irrelevant for the purpose of
deciding an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. Apprehension of appellant/plaintiff is not out of place and
remaining suit property needs to be protected and it cannot be allowed to
change its hands during the pendency of suit.
5. In the result, appeal is allowed. Application of appellant/
plaintiff (exhibit 5) is allowed in terms of prayer clause contained in it.
No order as to costs. Learned trial Judge shall endeavour to decide the
suit on merit as early as possible.
A. P. BHANGALE, J
No comments:
Post a Comment