Laxman Tukaram Sawant & Ors. v. Smt. Shantabai Vithu Sawant & Ors.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The application is disposed of as not pressed
Judgment
Smt. Shantabai Vithu Sawant & Ors. ..Respondents Mr.Nitin P. Deshpande, Advocate for the Applicants. .......... Mr. P.G. Lad, Advocate for the Respondents. .......... CORAM : MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 5TH NOVEMBER 2012. P.C. 1 The application is moved by the respondents that status-quo order dated 9.3.2006 granted by this court in civil application no.27/2006 in second appeal no.12/2006 be vacated. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the suit was for injunction filed by the appellants in respect of the land. The suit and the first appeal were dismissed. However, when the second appeal was admitted, this court directed both the parties to maintain status-quo. The leaned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the appellants have filed revision before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, challenging the order of the SDO deleting the appellants' names. The said revision was decided against the appellants by an order of the Additional Commissioner dated 30.04.2012. The learned counsel for the applicants/respondents have moved this application for vacating the status-quo so that the applicants can move for change in the revenue record. ms.s.k.talekar - 2 - 3 The learned counsel for the respondents (original appellants) submitted that the appellants have filed revision before the Revenue Minister and the same is pending. My attention is also drawn to the order of this court dated 9.03.2006 wherein, it was found that there is concurrent finding of facts by the courts below that both the parties are in joint possession of the suit property. The learned counsel for the applicants submits that their application for early hearing on the ground that the respondents being a senior citizen is allowed by this Court. He submits that if the second appeal is taken for hearing as a short issue is involved therein and as his application for early hearing is already allowed, then he is not pressing this application. 4 In view of the submissions of both the learned counsel for the parties, and as this court has already allowed the application for early hearing, list the appeal on the board of final hearing commencing from 7th January 2013. The application is disposed of as not pressed. (JUDGE) ms.s.k.talekar
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The application is disposed of as not pressed
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 05 Nov 2012. The bench was MRIDULA BHATKAR.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.