ARJUN VITTHAL Arjun KUDHEKAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION KUDHEKAR Date: 2025.08.03 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.267 OF 2010

22:04:35 +0530 Pramod Ramvilas Malpani …Applicant Versus Sham Tuljaram Pardeshi …Respondents (Since deceased through his legal heir)

1A. Anusaya Tuljaram Pardeshi

2. Sanjay Tuljaram Pardeshi _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Surel S. Shah, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Nachiket V. Khaladkar, for the Applicant.

Mr. S. S. Patwardhan i/b Ms. Mrinal A. Shelar, for Respondent No.1A.

_______________________________________________________________

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.

DATED: 15 APRIL 2025 JUDGMENT:

1. Heard Mr. Surel S. Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

Challenge:

2. By the present Civil Revision Application the challenge is to the legality and validity of the Order dated 8th December 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No.474 of 2009 (“impugned Order”). By the impugned Order the Appeal filed by the present Respondent No.1 has been allowed by setting aside Order dated 3rd August 2009 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes Court and Jt. C.J.S.D., Pune below Exhibit-39 in Regular Darkhast No.152 of 2004. The relief sought in the said Application bearing Exhibit-39 filed in said Regular Darkhast by the Respondent No.1- Shyam Tuljaram Pardeshi is that it be ordered that decree passed in Civil Suit No.951 of 1991 is vitiated as obtained by the Decree-Holder by playing fraud and therefore the same is a nullity. Further prayer sought is that it be held that the said decree is in-executable against the Obstructionist i.e. the Respondent No.1. The said Application bearing Exhibit-39 has been dismissed by the learned Executing Court by Order dated 3rd August 2009. By the impugned Order dated 8th December 2009 of the learned District Judge by setting aside Order dated 3rd August 2009 of the learned Executing Court the said application bearing Exhibit-39 has been allowed.

Factual Matrix:

3. Before setting out the rival contentions and consideration of the same, it is necessary to set out certain factual aspects:

i. One Tuljaram Hemraj Pardeshi was the Tenant and the Applicants are the landlords of the suit premises consisting of three rooms on the ground floor of House No.438, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel Road, Centre Street, Pune.

ii. Said Tuljaram i.e. Original Tenant passed away on 15th May

1989.

iii. It is the claim of the Applicants that all the heirs and legal representatives of said Original Tenant - Tuljaram have executed a document dated 4th April 1991 by which all the heirs and legal representatives accepted that the tenancy be transferred in favour of one of the heir of said Tuljaram namely - Sanjay Tuljaram Pardeshi.

iv. It is the case of the Applicants that all the heirs and legal representatives of said Tuljaram i.e. Original Tenant had executed the said writing dated 4th April 1991 including the present Respondent No.1 i.e. Sham Tuljaram Pardeshi. However, it is the case of the Respondent No.1 that the Respondent No.1- Sham Tuljaram Pardeshi had not executed the said writing and his signature appearing on the said writing is fabricated and bogus.

v. At this stage, only it is required to be noted that the learned Appellate Court in the impugned Order has observed that except Respondent No.1 other heirs and legal representatives of said Tuljaram had executed the said writing dated 4th April 1991. The relevant portion of said writing is as follows:-

ßJh- rqGtkjke gsejkt ijns’kh gs rkjh[k 15.5.1989 jkts h e;r >kys- vkEgh [kkyh lg;k d:u fygwu ns.kkj loZt.k R;kaps dqVqackps ?kVd ßokjlÞ vkgkrs -

lnjgw jkgR;k tkxsph HkkMsikorh vkrk vki.k Jh- lat; rqGtkjke ijns’kh g;kaP;k ukaokus cnywu ?;koh o Jh lat; rqGtkjke ijns’kh gsp rqeps HkkMds jh Eg.kwu jkgkrhy o R;kcn~ny vkEgh loZt.k Lo[k’q khu