Ranjan Bhausaheb Dombe vs. Mahesh Devidas Sathe
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Fixed Date by Court
Before:
Hon'ble Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Hon'ble Hemant Gupta
Stage:
AFTER NOTICE (FOR ADMISSION) - CIVIL CASES
Remarks:
Stay/Status quo, IA Allowed [62256/2021,62257/2021,83045/2021], List After (Weeks) [3]
Listed On:
26 Jul 2021
In:
Judge
Category:
UNKNOWN
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.37 Court 7 (Video Conferencing) SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 7064/2021
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-03-2021 in CRAST No. 21054/2019 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
RANJAN BHAUSAHEB DOMBE Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
MAHESH DEVIDAS SATHE & ORS. Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.62256/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.62257/2021-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.,IA NO. 83044/2021-MODIFICATION AND IA 83045/2021- EXEMPTION FROM FILING AFFIDAVIT)
Date : 26-07-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
Digitally signed by Charanjeet kaur Date: 2021.07.27 17:11:23 IST Reason:
Signature Not Verified
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
For Petitioner(s) | Mr. Makrand Adkar, Adv. | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR | |||||
Ms. Sheetal patil, Adv. | |||||
Mr. P. Prakash, Adv. | |||||
For Respondent(s) Mr. Surel Shah, Adv. Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
Applications for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment, exemption from filing O.T., modification and exemption from filing affidavit are allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondents have entered appearance and stated that the respondent
No. 1 is in possession and a categorical averment has been made in the plaint to the effect. On our query, learned counsel is not able to point out such an averment but then contends that the English translation of the plaint may not be correct and he would like to file a proper translation.
Needful be done within two weeks.
List after three weeks.
In the meantime, further proceedings in the suit are stayed.