SYED AKBAR Vs. SYED ABDUL HAQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel Mr. V. C. Solshe for the Petitioner and learned counsel Mrs. A. N. Ansari for Respondent No. 1.

(2.) The Petitioner, in this writ petition, was Defendant No. 2 in Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1993. The Respondent, in this petition, was plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1993. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are not represented since no notice was, issued to them. Respondent No. 1 had filed caveat that is how learned counsel Mrs. Ansari is appearing for Respondent No. 1. In this writ petition, we are concerned with original plaintiff, who is Respondent No. 1 and the defendant No. 2, who is Petitioner. Thus, the parties, herein after, are referred to their status as plaintiff and defendant No. 2.

(3.) Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1993 was filed by plaintiff against the defendants for partition and separate possession of his share in relation to the suit properties. It is admitted fact that the suit properties consist agricultural lands as well as residential house property. Regular Civil Suit No. 43 of 1999 ended with passing of compromise decree. Copy of the compromise decree, passed in Regular Civil Suit no. 43 of 1993, is no record at Annexure-B. This compromise decree was put into execution by filing Regular Darkhast No. 11 of 2005 in the Court of learned Ci vi 1 Judge, Junior Division, udgir, District Latur. Regular Darkhast No. 11 of 2005 is filed under section 54 of the Code of civil Procedure, as pointed out by the learned counsel Mr. Solshe, for the Petitioner. During the pendency of Regular Darkhast No. 11 of 2005, two applications were filed at Exhibit-23 and 27 by the defendant No. 2. The trial Court passed common order below Exhibit-1, 23 and 27 in Regular Darkhast No. 11 of 2005 on 23rd march, 2006. Applications at Exhibit-23 and 27 were dismissed with costs and the Judgment debtor No. 2 i. e. defendant No. 2 was saddled with the costs of Rs. 500/ -. This order was subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition no. 3435 of 2006 by the defendant No. 2, in this court. The writ petition is allowed by this Court by the order passed on 30th September, 2006. The trial Court was directed to recall the precept issued under section 54 of the Code of Civil procedure and determine the issue regarding executability of the decree in accordance with law. Time frame was given by this Court. After this order, passed by the High Court, the plaintiff/decree holder filed an application for amendment of the Regular Darkhast on 1st february, 2007. It was at Exhibit-45. This application was opposed by the defendant No. 2 by filing reply on 12th February, 2007. The trial court, after hearing the parties, allowed the application for amendment filed by the decree holder, by the order passed on 2nd March, 2007. It is this order, which is challenged in this writ petition by the defendant No. 2.