SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Bom) 125

A.M.KHANWILKAR
Balu Appaji Sangaonkar – Appellant
Versus
Rangrao Dattoba Palkar – Respondent


JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This writ petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the Additional District Judge, Kolhapur dated 16-12-1992 below Exhibit 35 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 69 of 1992.

2. The preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent is that this writ petition cannot proceed in absence of Kondi Rama Dhinde, original defendant No. 1. This objection is, however, being raised for the first time across the bar. This writ petition has remained pending since 1993, for it was admitted as back as one 18-2-1993. Admittedly, the respondent did not file any reply affidavit or a formal application raising this preliminary objection, but the same was raised only when the Court was about to dictate the judgment after hearing both the Counsel on merits. In any case I find no force in the preliminary objection. In my view the presence of Kondi Rama Dhinde, original defendant No. 1, is not essential or necessary for the adjudication of this petition. It is relevant to point out that, admittedly, the suit proceeded ex parte against the said Kondi Rama Dhinde, original defendant No. 1. Moreover, the said Kondi Rama D























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top