MUKUND BAPU JADHAV Vs. TANU SAKHU PAWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal from a decision of the Assistant Judge of Satara raising a point of practice which has given rise to some difference of opinion amongst the High Courts. So far as respondents Nos. 2 and 6 are concerned, they have died and their heirs have not been brought on the record. Therefore, as against them, the appeal abates, and our decision does not affect them. Mr. Koyajee, who appeared for the heirs of respondent No. 6, admits that as his clients are not on the record he has no locus standi, but he has been good enough to assist us in the capacity of amicus curice by arguing against the appellant.

(2.) The point which arises for decision is whether the applicant, having obtained an order for possession under Order XXI, Rule 35, which has been obstructed, and having raised no objection to the obstruction within thirty days, is at liberty to apply for a fresh order for possession.

(3.) The facts giving rise to the application are these.