PRAMOD R. MALPANI vs SHAM T. PARDESHI AND OTHER

Judgment text excerpt

08-CRA-267-2010.doc ARJUN VITTHAL Arjun KUDHEKAR Digitally signed by IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ARJUN VITTHAL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION KUDHEKAR Date: 2025.08.03 22:04:35 +0530 CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.267 OF 2010 Pramod Ramvilas Malpani …Applicant Versus Sham Tuljaram Pardeshi …Respondents (Since deceased through his legal heir) 1A. Anusaya Tuljaram Pardeshi 2. Sanjay Tuljaram Pardeshi _______________________________________________________________ Mr. Surel S. Shah, Senior Advocate i/b Mr. Nachiket V. Khaladkar, for the Applicant. Mr. S. S. Patwardhan i/b Ms. Mrinal A. Shelar, for Respondent No.1A. _______________________________________________________________ CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED: 15 APRIL 2025 JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr. Surel S. Shah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Applicant and Mr. S. S. Patwardhan, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. Challenge: 2. By the present Civil Revision Application the challenge is to the legality and validity of the Order dated 8th December 2009 passed by the learned District Judge, Pune in Regular Civil Appeal No.474 of 2009 (“impugned Order”). By the impugned Order the Appeal filed by the present Respondent No.1 has been allowed by setting aside Order dated 3rd August 2009 passed by the learned Additional Judge, Small Causes 1 08-CRA-267-2010.doc Court and Jt. C.J.S.D., Pune below Exhibit-39 in Regular Darkhast No.152 of 2004. The relief sought in the said Application bearing Exhibit-39 filed in said Regular Darkhast by the Respondent No.1- Shyam Tuljaram Pardeshi is that it be ordered that decree passed in Civil Suit No.951 of 1991 is vitiated as obtained by the Decree-Holder by playing fraud and therefore the same is a nullity. Further prayer sought is that it be held that the said