RAMCHANDRA @ AKRAM SAKHARAM GADKARI Vs. TUKARAM SUBHANA GADKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Petitioners are challenging the order dated 2nd September 1992 passed by the Third Additional District Judge, Satara in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 245 of 1990.

(2.) REGULAR Civil Suit No. 33 of 1979 was filed by Tukaram Sakharam Gadkari, predecessor of Respondent Nos. 1A to 1J for partition and possession of agricultural lands. After service, the Petitioners engaged Shri J.S. Patil, Advocate. It is necessary to note that the Petitioners are illiterate agriculturists and have to depend upon the legal advise as given to them. The Petitioners advocate was appointed as a Co -operative Court Judge and therefore he could not attend the hearing of the suit. The Petitioners were also unaware about the date given in the suit. Thus on 28th October, 1988 exparte decree was passed by the Trial Court. On 15th January 1990 the Petitioners received a notice from the Circle Inspector about partition of the suit land. On making inquiries, the Petitioners came to knew that their advocate has been appointed as a Judge of the Co -operative Court and exparte decree has been passed. On 23rd March, 1990 the Petitioners filed Application No. 14 of 1990 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the exparte decree. The said application was resisted by Respondent Nos. 1A to 1J. The Trial Court by its order dated 1st December, 1990 dismissed the said application holding that the Petitioners have failed to make out a sufficient cause and that there is delay which is not properly explained. The Petitioners preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No. 245 of 1990 against the aforesaid order of the Trial Court. The said Misc. Civil Appeal was dismissed by the Third Additional District Judge, Satara by his judgment and order dated 2nd September, 1992.

(3.) THE present suit was filed in the year 1979 and the suit is to be remitted back to the Trial Court in the year 1997. The Petitioners must compensate Respondent Nos. 1A to 1J for their fault. The Petitioners are in possession of the agricultural lands and are cultivating the same and the Respondents are out of possession. Ends of justice will be met if the Petitioners are directed to pay the compensatory costs which are quantified at Rs. 10,000/ -. The said costs shall be paid by the Petitioners to Respondent Nos. 1A to 1J on or before 15th July, 1997. As the Petitioners are in possession of the suit land and again it will take some time for final disposal of the suit, during the pendency of the suit and any proceedings thereafter adopted, the Petitioners must pay Respondent Nos. 1A to 1J a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - per annum. The said amount is to be paid every year. As far as the current year 1977 is concerned, the Petitioners shall deposit in the Trial Court a sum of Rs. 15,000/ - on or before 15th August, 1997. For subsequent years, the Petitioners shall deposit Rs. 15,000/ -on or before 15th August of each succeeding year. Respondent Nos. 1A to 1J are at liberty to withdraw the said amount. In case of failure to deposit Rs. 15,000/ - per annum. Respondent Nos. 1A to 1J will be at liberty to apply to the Trial Court for appointment of the Court Receiver and to act as agents of the Court Receiver.