GEETA GOVIND SAWANT DESAI Vs. NANDKUMAR ANANDRAO PATKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Application No. 6685 of 1987 discloses the grossest abuse of the process of the Court by the applicants and, as will be presently pointed out, I was very much inclined to pass an instant order to hear them in this behalf and found appropriate in law giving these contemners in the custody of the Sheriff after sentencing them to Civil Jail on account of this kind of abuse of the process of the Court. It is only because both the learned Counsel, Mr. Walavalkar & Mr. Hatangadi have prayed that this drastic step may not be taken that I am restraining myself from passing such order although I am not sure that this restraint is called for in this gross case.

(2.) A simple statement of facts is quite enough to expose the most obvious device (of taking the Court for a joy-ride) employed by these Applicants in Civil-Application No. 6685 of 1987:---

(3.) It will be, thus, seen that a full, final and conclusive decree has been passed so far as the original judgment-debtor Raghunathrao is concerned. I may mention that in the Writ Petition in which undertaking was taken from these applicants Nos. 1 to 4, a declaration was made by these very applicants to the effect that it was they and nobody else was in possession of the suit premises. Obviously, this Raghunathrao, original judgement-debtor, was fully aware of this declaration. It any evidence is needed for this, that can be amply found in the fact that the present Applicant No. 5, who is the original judgment-debtor, has made common cause with these applicants Nos. 1 to 4 who had filed the declaration as directed by Justice Jahagirdar in Writ Petition No. 5492 of 1986 stating that no one, other than themselves, was in possession of the suit premises on the date of the declaration which was filed on or after 5th December, 1986 pursuant to the order of Justice Jahagirdar dated 5th December, 1986. This means that not only that the decree against the original judgment-debtor is now final & conclusive, but now it stands executed against the original Judgment Debtor (present Applicant No. 5) in the eyes of law, because he is no longer in possession. All that remains is the task of the decree-holder to take possession from the obstructionist. They have made a declaration that no one else was in possession and that they were in exclusive possession of the same and had given an undertaking to vacate the premises by 31st March, 1981.