DAMODAR BHAGWANT PANDE Vs. NARAYAN BHAGWANT PANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision application was listed before this Court for final hearing on 16-6-1998. The counsel for the applicants made his submissions. However, since the Counsel for the non-applicants was absent, the matter was kept part heard and adjourned to 22-6-1998 as part heard. The matter could not be heard on 22nd, 23rd and 24th June, 1998 since it did not reach for hearing on those days and it remained part heard on all those days. When the matter is called out today for hearing, the Counsel for the non-applicants is absent. Hence, the matter is proceeded further on merits.

(2.) SHRI Khamborkar, the learned Counsel for the applicants, submitted that the present non-applicants filed regular Civil Suit No. 32/70 for setting aside partition and re-determination of share of Narayan Bhagwant Pande. It is further submitted that the trial Court decreed the suit No. 4-5-1972. The learned Counsel submitted that original defendant Damodar Bhagwant Pande being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, preferred first appeal. However, same came to be dismissed. Thereafter, second appeal bearing No. 215/75 was preferred, which also came to be dismissed by this Court on 18-3-1991. The learned Counsel contended that during the course of above referred proceedings, original plaintiff, i. e. non-applicant No. 1 and original defendant, i. e. applicant No. 1 died and present applicants and non-applicants are the legal representatives of original judgment debtor and decree holder.

(3.) THE learned Counsel further submitted that the aforesaid decree was sought to be executed by filing Regular darkhast No. 227/92. An objection was raised by the present applicants in the execution proceedings on the ground that the same are barred by limitation. The learned Counsel contended that 4th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, amravati vide order dated 18-6-1996 upheld the objection raised by the applicants on the ground of limitation and execution proceedings came to be dismissed. The learned counsel further submitted that the said order dated 18-6-1996 passed in Regular Darkhast No. 227/92 was not challenged by the non-applicants nor the same has been set aside by any competent Civil Court till this date. The learned Counsel submitted that therefore, the said order dated 18-6-1996 has attained finality.