The main legal point established in the judgment is that a decree obtained by the respondents-decree holders cannot be executed against the petitioners as long as the purchase certificates under section 32M of the Tenancy Act stand.

ORAL JUDGMENT :- This writ petition arises from the order dated 287-1986 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Dn., Islampur, on the application at Exhibit-6 in Regular Darkhast No. 193 of 1968. By the impugned order, the application at Exhibit-6 filed by the petitioners-defendants purportedly under section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "CPC"), has been rejected.

2. This litigation has a chequered history. I propose to make a reference to the factual matrix, to the extent as may be necessary and relevant for adjudication of the questions raised in this petition. The darkhast proceedings, in which the petitioners filed the application at Exhibit-6, arise from the judgment and decree dated 12-10-1968 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 25 of 1968. The said suit was filed by one Ramchandra Vishnu Kulkarni. It appears that Ramchandra Kulkarni died on 5-12-1972. His four sons, viz. Narayan, Govind, Ashok, Hindurao and his wife Karnlabai were brought on record in the darkhast proceedings. Out of the five heirs, Govind, Ashok and Hindurao were brought on record in the present writ petition as respondent Nos. 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d). Insofar as respondent Nos. 2 to 17, the original defendants in the suit are concerned, they have been deleted by the petitioners being not necessary parties for the purpose of deciding the instant writ petition. The suit was instituted claiming relief of joint possession in respect of several properties including the suit agricultural lands bearing Gat No. 2238, formerly RS. No. 307/1, 307/2 and 307/3, totally admeasuring two hectors and three Ares, situate at village Kasegaon, Taluka WaIve, District-Sangli, herein referred to as "the suit lands".

3. Few admitted facts are as follows. The petitioners are in exclusive possession of the suit lands. They were party-defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 25 of 1968. The suit was decreed exparte on 12-10-1968. Some of the defendants carried the matter in Appeal and then in the Second Appeal before this Court. Both the appeals were dismissed and consequently the decree stood confirmed. The petitioners did not appear in the suit, though were served, nor did they challenge the decree in appeal. The petitioners even did not appear in the appeals filed by the other defendants. Immediately after the suit was decreed on 12-10-1968, Regular Darkhast No. 193 of 1968 was filed by Ramchandra Vishnu Kulkarni. However, the execution proceedings remain stayed pending the aforesaid appeals.

4. The case set up by the petitioners is that their father Pandu Oavade was a tenant in all the three suit lands since before 1-4-1957. All throughout the suit lands stood in the name of the original defendant Nos. 1 and 2, i.e. the deleted respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the petition, and their father Pandurang Ramchandra Kulkarni as landlords. The 32-0 proceedings under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short, "the Tenancy Act") in respect of RS. Nos. 307/1, one of the three suit lands, was initiated and concluded by fixing its purchase price on 31-10-1961. The purchase certificate under section 32M in respect thereof was also issued on 19-8-1967. It appears that some time prior to 1964 the petitioners' father-Pandu Oavade was illegally dispossessed from the other two suit lands, viz. RS. Nos. 307/2: 307/3 and hence he had to file an application for restoration of possession under section 29 of the Tenancy Act. In 1964 the application for restoration of possession was allowed. That order was carried by defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in appeal, then in revision and thereafter in Special Civil Application before this Court. Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 lost before all the forums and the possession of RS. No. 307/2 and 307/3 was delivered to the petitioners' father on 14-8-1973. Thereafter, 320 proceedings in respect thereof were initiated and concluded with the issuance of the purchase certificate under section 32M of the Tenancy Act on 25-7-1978. It is against this backdrop

Click Here to Read the rest of this document