Advocates:
['ADV KAKODKAR SHAMBHU SATCHIDANAND', '', 'ADV HARSHAD H ARSEKAR', 'ADV AVDHUT S ARSEKAR', 'ADV ALMEIDA MARIO JOAQUIM PINTO', '', 'ADV ALMEIDA MARIO JOAQUIM PINTO']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 560 OF 2014

SHRI SAYED SADIK SHA MUZAWAR REP.

HEREIN BY HIS P.O.A. SHRI SAIAD

NAZIR XA MUZAVOR

... Petitioner

Versus

SMT. MONALINDA MELO E FERNANDES

AND 18 ORS.,

... Respondents

Mr. Kakodkar Shambhu Satchidanand, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Almedia Mario Joaquim Pinto, Advocate for the respondent

Nos.1, 2 & 3.

Coram:- M. S. SANKLECHA, J.

Date:-

21st April, 2015

P.C.

At the request of the counsel for the parties, the petition itself is

taken up for final disposal, at the stage of admission.

2. This petition challenges the order dated 14 August 2014 passed

by the Ad-hoc-III Additional Senior Civil Judge at Margao. By the

impugned order, the petitioner's application for stay of execution

under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter

referred to as 'C.P.C.'), was dismissed.

3. The impugned order dismisses the application by disregarding the

decision of this court in "Narsidas Nathubhai Vohra vs. Manharsingh

Agarsing Thakar, reported in AIR 1931 Bombay 247" on the ground

that the same is a very old judgment and instead places reliance upon

the decision of some other Courts. This clearly not permissible. All

Courts within the State are bound by the decisions of this Court and

2

WP/560/2014

the same cannot be ignored on the ground that the same is very old.

There is no concept known to law which denudes the judgment of its

binding character, only on account of passage of time.

4. In the above view, this is an appropriate case where supervisory

jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be

exercised. Thus the impugned order dated 14 August 2014 is set

aside with a direction to the learned Judge that he will decide issues

arising before her, on the basis of decision rendered by this Court in

the absence of any decision of the Supreme Court to the contrary.

5. The impugned order is set aside and the application under Order

XXI Rule 29 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioner is restored to the Court

of Ad-hoc-III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Margao, for fresh

disposal. Mr. Almedia, the learned counsel for the contesting

respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 very fairly states that the respondents will

not take any steps in execution till the disposal of the petitioner's

application under Order XXI Rule 29 of the C.P.C.

6. All contentions left open to be urged before the Executing Court.

Parties are directed to appear before the Ad-hoc-III Additional Senior

Civil Judge, Margao, at 10 am. on 15 June 2015 for further direction

by the Court.

7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

M. S. SANKLECHA, J.

ssk