AUDUTH TIMBLO Vs. SITA SHRIPAD NARVEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY both these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the common order dated 30th August, 2010 passed by the IIIrd Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao in Special Execution Application no.18/2002/III and Special Execution Application No.23/2002/III. Briefly, the facts leading to filing of these

(2.) MR . Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel by the executing Court for rejecting the applications for amendments are patently unsustainable in law. He further urged that the proposed amendments are necessitated on account of subsequent events and, therefore, the executing Court has clearly erred in dismissing the applications on the grounds stated in the impugned order. According to learned Counsel, the proposed amendments would not change the nature of the execution applications as held by the executing Court nor would cause prejudice to the decree holders. According to Mr. Pereira, without prejudice to rights and contentions of the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to adjust the amount of Rs.1,28,94,100/ - against the amount due to the decree holders in the event it is held that the decree holders are liable to pay the amounts in terms of the consent decree dated 20th April, 2000. Mr. Pereira further submitted that mere delay in filing the applications would not be fatal to the applications for amendments. Learned Counsel further submitted that if the impugned order is not set aside, serious prejudice would be caused to the petitioner and he would be deprived of a valuable right to lead evidence in support of his objections to the execution applications filed by the decree holders. In support of his submissions, Mr. Pereira, relied upon the following judgments :

(3.) MR . Sonak, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in Writ Petition Nos.746/2010 adopted the arguments advanced by Mr. Nadkarni and submitted that the petitioner had even contended that he was not the judgment debtor, which contention was negatived by the executing Court and upheld by this Court in Writ Petition Nos.629 and 630 of 2003 in which this Court has held that the petitioner was raising dishonest contentions when the execution proceedings have started. According to Mr. Sonak, Advocate notice dated 28th February, 2002 upon which reliance has been placed in the application for amendment does not advance the case of the petitioner.