PANDURANG DHARMA GAIKWAD Vs. MAHAMUDMUYA AHMADSAHEB PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal No. 504 of 1991 is arising out of proceeding in Regular Civil Suit no. 96 of 1984. Respondent-Mohamuddin is the plaintiff in civil suit no. 96/1984. The suit was filed for mandatory injunction i. e. for removal of encroachment and the possession. The suit was dismissed with costs by judgment dated 29th July 1987, against which the respondent/original plaintiff preferred first appeal no. 119/1987 which was allowed on 21st August 1991 and the judgment and decree passed by the lower court was set aside. The said judgment and order of the appellate court is challenged by the appellant-original defendant in second appeal no. 504/1991.

(2.) Second Appeal No. 620/2010 is filed against the judgment and order of the concurrent finding of the courts below. Regular Civil Suit No. 30/1995 was filed for perpetual injunction against the appellant from interfering the possession of the respondent over the suit land i. e. 7.4 M X 3.3. M. , which was decreed on 16.2.1998 by the trial court against which civil appeal was preferred by the present appellant-original defendant in suit of 61/1998 and the said appeal was dismissed with costs on 9th July 2012.

(3.) In appeal no. 504/1991, though appearance of one advocate Mr. Pawar is shown, he did not appear before this court when the matter was taken up for hearing. The matter was shown on the board for final hearing since last week and thus, sufficient notice was given to the respondent. In second appeal no. 620/2010, though the writ was served on the respondent, nobody appeared for the respondent. Both the appeals are listed on the board of final hearing, since last week and thus sufficient notice was given to the respondent. Hence appeal proceeded exparte.