AMOL VISHWANATH BADE Vs. DATTATRAYA DINKAR GHULE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for respondent No.1 on caveat. The revision is being disposed of after hearing these parties finally.

(2.) This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming to be Opponent No.4 in Regular Darkhast No.25/2009 pending before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pathardi. According to the petitioner, he objected to the execution of the Darkhast on the ground that the decree passed under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 was preliminary decree and so, the same was not executable unless final decree proceedings are drawn up before the trial Court. The executing Court heard the petitioner referring to him as "alleged Judgment Debtor No.4" and after hearing the decree holder also, has rejected the application of the present petitioner.

(3.) I have heard counsel for petitioner and counsel for respondent No.1. According to learned counsel for petitioner, respondent No.1 Dattatraya had brought suit for specific performance against respondent No.2 Dr. Dilip and respondent No.3 Umrao (arrayed as defendant Nos.1 and 2 in the suit - Regular Civil Suit No.170/1996) before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Pathardi). The suit came to be decreed on 8.3.2002 and the decree has been maintained even till Second Appeal to High Court. Counsel for petitioner submitted that, there was another dispute between respondent No.3 (Judgment Debtor No.2) and his wife Jayshree, the present respondent No.4 (but who was not party to the Civil Suit No. 170/1996) in Family Court at Bandra having No.634/2000 and compromise took place between them. In the said compromise, the respondent No.3, by way of permanent alimony, handed over suit land admeasuring 85 R to respondent No.4, and respondent No.3 executed sale deed dated 27.4.2001 in favour of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4 in turn sold the suit land to petitioner on 29.12.2008. The Second Appeal in the matter was disposed on 3.2.2012 and it is not disputed that the sale deed executed in favour of petitioner on 29.12.2008 was lis pendens in Regular Civil Suit No.170/1996. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, in execution, this petitioner was arrayed as opponent No.4 and thus, he filed the application objecting to the execution.