PRAKASH Vs. MAHARASHTRA PULSE MILLS, JALGAON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 25.02.2014 passed by 6th Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jalgaon, below application, Exhibit-179 in Regular Darkhast No.152 of 2012 (Special Darkhast No.2 of 1978). By the impugned order, the respondent herein (decree holder) has been allowed to deposit Rs.42,000/-, petitioner no.l (deceased) - original Judgment Debtor has been directed to execute sale deed and in the event of his failing to do so, the respondent - decree holder were given liberty to get executed the sale deed through Court. BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS :

(2.) . The respondent, partnership firm, filed a suit being Special Civil Suit No.4 of 1975 for specific performance of agreement for sale against petitioner no.l. On 30.07.1977, the suit was decreed. The respondent/firm filed proceedings (Regular Darkhast No.2 of 1978) for execution of the decree on 06.02.1978. The petitioner/judgment debtor preferred First Appeal (295 of 1978). The same came to be dismissed on 23.06.1982. Under the decree, the petitioner/judgment debtor was directed to obtain Non-Agriculture (N.A.) permission from the concerned authority within a period of two months and then, execute sale deed in favour of the respondent/decree holder on receipt of Rs.42,000/-.

(3.) Since the petitioner/judgment debtor did not obey the decree, the executing Court passed order dated 06.09.1980 appointing a Court Commissioner for moving competent authority for seeking N.A. Permission. On 14.01.1983, the Collector rejected N.A. Permission. On 18.06.1991, however, the Collector, Jalgaon, granted N.A. permission for residential purpose. The order granting N.A. permission was challenged by the petitioner/judgment debtor before the Commissioner. In January 1992, the Commissioner set aside the Collector's order granting N.A. Permission. He remanded the case back to the Collector with a direction to give the petitioner/judgment debtor an opportunity of hearing. The respondent/decree holder challenged the said order before the State Government unsuccessfully.