LAWS(BOM)-2013-10-91

SRIKANT BALWANT NALAWADE Vs. BAJARANG YASHWANT NIMBALKAR

Decided On October 19, 2013
Srikant Balwant Nalawade Appellant
V/S
Bajarang Yashwant Nimbalkar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE .

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Mr.P.M.Arjunwadkar waives service on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 to 8 and 9A. Respondent No.10 is already deleted in trial. Learned Advocate for the Petitioner Mr.Vijay Killedar upon instructions prays for withdrawal of Regular Civil Suit No.92 of 2007 presently pending on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jaisingpur in respect of Defendant nos.11A to Defendant No.25 as according to him these Defendants have executed a sale deed dated 26.8.2013 and 23.9.2013 so as to dispose of their share in respect of the property namely revision survey no.5 being the suit property. The Petitioner to carry out the job of deletion of Defendant Nos.11A to 25 on or before 18.11.2013 in the trial Court.

(3.) THE Petitioner filed the aforesaid Regular Civil Suit No.92 of 2007 against the contesting Respondents herein and other Respondents who have since been deleted for specific performance of the Agreement dated 20.10.1982 in respect of land revision survey no.5. The original Defendant Nos.1 to 6, 10, 11A, 11B, 14, 15, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 24 filed a common Written statement. The Defendant Nos.2A and 2B had filed a separate written statement. Since the suit is being withdrawn as indicated earlier, the Writ Petition filed by Defendant nos.1 to 6 along with certain other Defendants as mentioned earlier was required to be perused in this Petition. In the said Written statement, the Defendant nos. 1 to 6 disputed the signatures appearing on the document dated 20.10.1982 and contended that they are bogus signatures and it was also contended that some signatures on plain paper were issued and that plain paper was handed over to the Plaintiff. A plain reading of the Written statement and particularly para 9 filed as Defendant nos. 1 to 6 i.e. present Respondent nos. to 1 to 6 clearly indicates that they had disputed the execution of the document by contending that the signatures appearing on the said document dated 20.10.1982 are forged.