Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

-

1. Heard finally with consent at admission stage.

2. By way of this Writ Petition, the petitioner/original decree holder is seeking quashing and setting aside the order dated 09.11.2012 passed below Exhibit 262 by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Ausa, District Latur/executing court in Regular Darkhast WP-39-2013 No.18 of 1981 and to allow the application Exhibit 262. The petitioner/original decree holder is further seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 04.07.2012 passed below Exhibit 178 in Regular Darkhast No.18 of 1981 and to dismiss the said application and also to direct respondent no.2/court receiver to comply with the order dated 06.08.2011 passed below Exhibit 77 in Regular Darkhast No. 18 of 1981 and to submit the accounts of the suit properties, including the arrears of rent, rent and amount received from cultivation of the agricultural land.

e. At this juncture, it is necessary to note that respondent no.1/ original defendant had filed Regular Darkhast No. 37 of 1983 along with Misc. Application No. 15 of 1983. It was her contention that she has attained majority and therefore, she may be permitted to file execution petition. In the said execution petition only the court receiver was impleaded as party and pendency of execution petition bearing Regular Darkhast No. 18 of 1981 was suppressed. Regular Darkhast No. 37 of 1983 was independently placed before the court and in absence of the decree holder, certain orders were procured. According to the petitioner, it was a plan to grab the suit properties. The petitioner thereafter filed the application Exhibit 262 and requested the executing court to decide the legality of WP-39-2013 filing of the another darkhast bearing Regular Darkhast No. 37 of 1983 and to take decision on the objections after receipt of report of the Collector. Respondent no.2/court receiver also submitted his say. After hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 09.11.2012, the executing court has rejected the application. By filing this Writ Petition, the petitioner is thus challenging the order passed below Exhibit 262 so also the order passed below Exhibit 178 entertaining the objections thereby and also seeking direction to respondent no.2/court receiver to comply with the order dated 06.08.2011 passed below Exhibit 77 filed in Regular Darkhast No. 18 of 1981.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree of partition was sent to the Collector in June, 1981 and once the decree is sent for effecting partition under Section 54 of C.P.C., then the executing court becomes functus officio. Learned counsel submits that till this date report from the Collector is not received by the executing court. Learned counsel submits that respondent no.2/court receiver has not deposited arrears of rent or the amount received from cultivation of the suit lands. It is the case of the court receiver that the suit house was given on rent to one Nagnath Mali on yearly basis for Rs.550/-and the suit house was not vacated. All WP-39-2013 the while it was contended that the court receiver was ready to effect partition but actual partition in respect of the suit house was never effected. Respondent no.2/court receiver has willfully avoided for submission of accounts. Learned counsel submits that respondent no.2/court receiver has intended to grab the entire suit properties. Learned counsel submits that Regular Darkhast No. 37 of 1983 came to be filed by suppressing pendency of the main execution petition. Learned counsel submits that even assuming that respondent/defendant Nandubai had filed separate execution petition, however, the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the said execution petition. Learned counsel submits that record has been created in Regular Darkhast No. 37 of 1983 that half share is given to Nandubai. It is for the court receiver to explain as to what happened to the remaining half share of the property. Learned counsel submits that the executing court ought to have considered the application below Exhibit 262 for deciding the legality of Regular Darkhast No. 37 of 1983.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that non- compliance of the order dated 06.08.2011 would amount to misconduct on the part of the court receiver for which necessary action is required to be initiated. Respondent no.2/court receiver had given the house property on rent without permission of the executing court and possession is yet not recovered from the tenant. Though the court receiver was impleaded as party in execution petition i.e. Regular Darkhast No. 37 of 1983, he failed to point out pendency of Regular Darkhast No. 18 of 1981. Furthermore, it is equally surprising that possession of the agricultural lands shown to have been delivered to respondent no.1 Nandubai in her Regular Darkhast No. 37 of 1983 from the court receiver though the precept was sent to the Collector in Regular Darkhast No. 18 of 1981. It is thus clear that sham and bogus record has been created. No steps were taken to hand over possession to the extent of the share of the petitioner. The said Regular Darkhast No. 18 of 1981 is still pending. Learned counsel WP-39-2013 submits that neither the share in the house nor the share in the suit lands was given to the petitioner at any point of time. Learned counsel submits that respondent nos. 3 to 14 herein claim possession of the suit lands as purchasers and objected the decree of possession. Learned Judge of the executing court has permitted them to lead evidence. The said objections are untenable. So far as the petitioner's share is concerned, Regular Darkhast No. 18 of 1981 is pending and the measurement maps of the proposed shares are prepared by the Revenue officer as per the order passed by this Court. Hence, execution needs to proceed as per Section 54 of C.P.C.