Bombay High Court
Suveegya Manish Pandey And Another vs Prabodh Jagdishprasad Pandey And ... on 3 September, 2018
Author: Rohit B. Deo
Bench: Rohit B. Deo
1 Wp5598of2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION 5598 OF 2017
1 Suveegya Manish pande,
aged 20 years, Occ. Student
2 Nimisha @ Arnav Manish Pande,
aged 15 years,
No. 1 through his power of attorney,
No. 2 through his appointed guardian
Shir Madan Mohan Tripathgi.
Both nos. 1 and 2 r/o.Door no. 2,
New No. 42, Old No. 71, Parkwood
apartments, Cee Dee Yess Building,
2nd main road, Gandhi Nagar,
Chennai ...PETITIONERS
...V E R S U S...
1 Prabodh Jagdishprasad Pande,
Aged 50 years,
R/o. House No. 8, Ambedkar Chowk
Market Amgaon,
Tah. Amgaon, Dist. Gondia
2 Kuwar Manoj Jagdishprasad Pande,
Aged 59 years,
R/o Qtr No. B-1, RoomNo. 4,
4th Floor, Nirmal Nagari, Umred Road,
In front of Mata Shitla Mata Mandir
Nagpur, Tah. Dist. Nagpur
3 Payojkumar Jagdishprasad Pandey,
Aged 57 years,
R/o. 4th Floor, Nirmal Apartments,
Opposite Nirmal Cooperative bank,
::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2018 02:08:58 :::
2 Wp5598of2017
Near Jagnade Square, Nagpur
4 Mamta Shailesh Dixit,
aged 45 years,
r/o. Krishna Villa,
Near Doubling Colony,
Civil Lines, Gondia,
Tah Dist Gondia
5 Rajani Chandrashekhar Pande,
aged 44 years, r/o.Plot No. 30-A,
Mantri Vihar, Supla Bhilai,
Tah. Dist. Durg
6 Mrs. Maya Jayprakash Pande,
aged 42 years,
R/o. Qtr No. b/89, SECL Colony,
Vasant Vihar, Bilaspur,
Tah. Dist. Bilaspur. ...RESPONDENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri N.A. Vyawahare, counsel for petitioners.
Shri J.P. Dubey, counsel for respondents 1 to 6.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM
:ROHIT B. DEO, J.
DATE
:03.09.2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
Heard Shri N.A. Vyawahare, the learned counsel for petitioners and Shri J.P. Dubey, counsel for respondents 1 to 6.. 2 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent. 3 The challenge is to the judgment and order dated 13.6.2017 rendered by the District Judge - 3, Gondia in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal 51 of 2016 allowing the appeal and ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2018 02:08:58 ::: 3 Wp5598of2017 setting aside the order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Gondia in Special Civil Suit 43 of 2016, the operative part of which reads thus:
"1) The appeal is allowed.
2) The impugned order dated 25.10.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Gondia is hereby quashed and set aside.
3) If any of the parties wanted to part with their share with third party, that will always be with prior permission of the Court.
4) The parties to bear their own cost."
The order impugned is, by and large, unexceptionable.
Concededly, the appellants in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal 51 of 2016 - who are defendants in civil suit are desirous of alienating their undivided share and interest in agricultural land. They are entitled to do so.
4 The learned appellate Court further directed that the parties shall seek prior permission of the Court, which direction is difficult to comprehend but then, the defendants have not challenged this part of the order and have in fact sought permission from the trial Court and it is stated at the bar that such permission is granted.
5 The petition is without substance. Shri N.A. ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2018 02:08:58 ::: 4 Wp5598of2017 Vyavhare, the learned counsel further contends that since the suit is ripe for hearing, the status-quo may be preserved and a direction may be issued to dispose of the suit expeditiously. The submission cannot be countenanced since there is no legal right in favour of the petitioners to prevent the defendants from alienating their undivided share and interest in the agricultural field. 6 The petition is rejected.
JUDGE RSB ::: Uploaded on - 04/09/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2018 02:08:58 :::