Bombay High Court
Pankajkumar S/O Inderlal Agrawal vs S.R. Mate (Deceased) Lrs. Sushilabai S. ... on 24 November, 2020
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
11.CAC(ST) 10776--2020.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CIVIL APPLICATION CAC(ST) NO.10776/2020
Pankajkumar s/o Inderlal Agrawal
...Versus...
Shamrao Rambhau Mate (now deceased) Legal Representatives Smt. Sushilabai
Wd/o Shamrao Mate and others
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -----------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---------
Shri A.V. Bhide, Advocate for petitioner
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 24/11/2020 The present revision application is listed with an application for condonation of delay of 150 days. This Court has perused the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay and it is found that the circumstances created by the pandemic and the consequent lockdown have resulted in delay on the part of the applicant in approaching this Court.
2. In view of the above, this Court finds that the reasons are satisfactory. Hence, the application is allowed and delay is condoned. Application is disposed of accordingly.
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION ST NO.10775/2020
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant in the present revision application.
4. The applicant has challenged order dated 25/02/2020, passed by the Executing Court, whereby objections raised on behalf of the applicant have been rejected.
::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2020 02:17:34 :::11.CAC(ST) 10776--2020.odt 2
5. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the Executing Court failed to appreciate that the applicant had purchased the concerned portion of land from registered owner and that therefore, he could not be proceeded against in the execution proceeding, as he was a bona fide purchaser without notice. Another objection was raised regarding contravention of the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (for short "the Act 1947). The Executing Court rejected both the objections.
6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the applicant and also perused the impugned order passed by the Executing Court. A perusal of the impugned order from paragraph No.4 onwards shows that both the aforesaid objections have been considered in detail by the Executing Court. In addition, an objection was also raised that the land in question, with which the applicant is concerned, was in possession of a third party to whom it was leased out. The Executing Court took into consideration these objections and rejected them.
7. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the principle of lis pendens has been applied by the Executing Court and it has been held that the applicant cannot claim any benefit of being a bona fide purchaser without notice. The facts on record have been taken into consideration and it has been found that the doctrine of lis pendence clearly applies as the land in question was transferred during the pendency of the suit and it was bound by the final result of the Court. No error can be attributed to the aforesaid view taken by the Executing Court.
8. Similarly, as regards the questions of alleged contravention of the Act of 1947 and the land being in possession of a lessee, the Executing Court has correctly ::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2020 02:17:34 :::
11.CAC(ST) 10776--2020.odt 3 rejected the objections, taking note of the fact that execution of the decree has been pending for a long period of time and no substantial ground has been made out by the applicant for postponing the execution of decree.
9. This Court agrees with the reasoning given by the Executing Court in the impugned order and therefore, it is found that present revision application does not deserve to be entertained.
10. In view of the above the Revision Application is dismissed. No order as to cost.
JUDGE J.Pethe ::: Uploaded on - 25/11/2020 ::: Downloaded on - 26/11/2020 02:17:34 :::