{"id":210268,"date":"2003-02-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003"},"modified":"2018-03-20T22:11:23","modified_gmt":"2018-03-20T16:41:23","slug":"babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"Babasaheb S\/O. Dhondiba Sule And … vs Asruba S\/O. Dhondiba Sule, … on 11 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Babasaheb S\/O. Dhondiba Sule And … vs Asruba S\/O. Dhondiba Sule, … on 11 February, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: A Deshpande<\/div>\n
Bench: A Deshpande<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 A.P. Deshpande, J.<\/p>\n
 1. A  common  question  of  law  about  the
\nmaintainability of the Revision Petitions  directed
\nagainst  interlocutory  orders cropped up after the
\nParliament introduced extensive  amendment  to  the
\nCivil  Procedure  Code  by  Amendment  Act of 1999,
\nwhich has come into force w.e.f.  1-7-2002.  As the
\nsaid  question  emerged   repeatedly   in   various
\nmatters,  I  had  directed the Registry to identify
\ncases, wherein identical issues  are  involved  and
\npursuant  to  the  said  direction,  the office has
\nplaced on Board aforesaid matters, wherein a common
\nquestion  of  maintainability   of   the   Revision
\nPetitions arises  for  adjudication.   I have heard
\nthe learned Advocates appearing  for  the  Revision
\nPetitioners,   so   also   the   learned  Advocates
\nrepresenting the respondents.   The  petitions  are
\ntaken in  two  groups.    Group  A denote petitions
\nwhich are admitted and pending  final  hearing  and
\nGroup  B denote cases which are at admission stage.
\nAll the petitions are being decided by this  common
\norder.\n<\/p>\n
 2. All the Revision Petitions  are  arising
\nout  of  the orders passed by the Trial Court under
\nOrder 39 Rule 1 and 2 of C.P.C., either granting or
\nrefusing injunction, which orders  are  carried  in
\nMiscellaneous  Appeals  before  the  District Judge
\nunder Order 43 Rule 1(r) of the C.P.C.   The  First
\nAppellate  Court,  in  these  matters,  has  either
\nconfirmed the order passed by the  trial  Court  by
\ngranting or refusing injunction and\/or has reversed
\nthe order.        To   decide   the   question   of
\nmaintainability of the Revisions, it is required to
\nbe first  ascertained  as  to  whether  the  orders
\nimpugned  are interlocutory in nature or otherwise.
\nThe  said  question  is  already  answered  by  the
\nlearned  Single  Judge  of this Court (Justice V.G.
\nPalshikar)  in  a  judgment  reported  in   2002(4)
\nMh.L.J.  615 ” Nagorao @ Arun s\/o.  Narayan Yerawar
\nand others  Vs.  Narayan Nagan Yerawar and another”
\nIt is held by the learned Single Judge that, ”  the
\nposition  of  an  order  under  Order  39 is, in my
\nopinion, identical.    The  principal   contentions
\nraised  by  different parties in the suit regarding
\nthe subject matter for which the interim  order  is
\nmade are  yet to be decided.  The findings recorded
\nby the learned trial Court or the  appellate  Court
\nunder  Order  43,  Rule  1 are prima facie findings
\ndealing with the continuation or discontinuation of
\na temporary  injunction  granted  or  not  granted.
\nThere  can,  therefore,  be no doubt that the order
\nunder Order 39 Civil Procedure Code is a  temporary
\norder.”\n<\/p>\n
 The learned Single Judge  has  proceeded
\nto  further  observe,  ”  What  is  contemplated by
\nsection
\n115 as amended in 2002 is  that  the  order
\nshould  be  such  if made in favour of the revision
\napplicant would have finally disposed of  the  suit
\nor other  proceedings.    The  Civil  Suit in which
\ntemporary injunction is granted or not  granted  is
\nnot  decided  finally  either  by  grant or refusal
\nthereof and  continues  to  pend.     Taking   into
\nconsideration this aspect of the matter, therefore,
\nit  cannot be said that merely because the revision
\napplication is directed against an order passed  by
\nappellate Court  finally deciding the Misc.  Appeal
\nunder Order 39, Rule 1 read with Order 43, Rule  1,
\nC.P.C., the  revision is maintainable.  What is now
\nnecessary  after  July,  2002  for  maintaining   a
\nrevision  is  that  the  order impugned in revision
\nmust have the effect of finally  disposing  of  the
\nsuit  or  proceedings  in  favour of the person who
\napplies for revision.  By very nature of things and
\nthe nature of Order 39 itself, such  a  contingency
\ncannot   occur   and   consequently,   a   revision
\napplication whether against an appellate  order  or
\noriginal  order  granting or refusing injunction is
\nnot maintainable after 1.7.2002.”\n<\/p>\n
 So  the  test  laid  down  in  the  said
\njudgment for a revision to be maintainable is  that
\nthe interlocutory order impugned in revision if set
\naside  must have the effect of finally disposing of
\nthe suit or proceedings in favour  of  the  person,
\nwho applies  for  revision.  In order to appreciate
\nthe test laid down in  the  judgment, I  proceed  to
\nrefer  to  the provisions of Section 115 as amended
\nby the Amendment Act  No.   46\/1999, which  has  come
\ninto force w.e.f.  1-7-2002, which is as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “S.\n<\/p>\n
115(1)  The High Court may call
\nfor the of any case which has been decided  by  any
\nCourt  subordinate  to such High Court and in which
\nno appeal lies thereto,  and  if  such  subordinate
\nCourt appears, <\/p>\n
 (a) to have  exercised  a  jurisdiction  not
\nvested in it by law, or  <\/p>\n
 (b) to   have   failed   to    exercise    a
\njurisdiction so vested, or  <\/p>\n
 (c) to have acted in  the  exercise  of  its
\njurisdiction illegally or with material
\nirregularity
\nthe High Court may make such order in the  case  as
\nit thinks fit :\n<\/p>\n
  Provided  that the High Court shall not,
\nunder this section, vary or reverse any order  made
\nor  any order deciding an issue, in the course of a
\nsuit or other proceeding except where the order, if
\nit had been made in favour of  the  party  applying
\nfor  revision,  would  have finally disposed of the
\nsuit or other proceedings.\n<\/p>\n
 (2) The High Court  shall  not,  under  this
\nsection vary or reverse any decree or order against
\nwhich an appeal lies either to the High Court or to
\nany Court subordinate thereto.\n<\/p>\n
 (3) A  revision  shall not operate as a stay
\nof suit or other proceeding before the court except
\nwhere such suit or other proceeding  is  stayed  by
\nthe High Court.\n<\/p>\n
 Explanation  : In this section, the expression “any
\ncase which has been  decided”  includes  any  order
\nmade, or any order deciding an issue, in the course
\nof a suit or other proceeding.”\n<\/p>\n
 The interpretation of the proviso  which
\nis  couched  in  a negative form, would provide the
\nanswer to the question.  The proviso lays down that
\nthe High Court shall not , under this Section, vary
\nor reverse any order made or any order deciding  an
\nissue,  in the course of a suit or other proceeding
\nexcept where the order, if  it  had  been  made  in
\nfavour  of  the  party applying for revision, would
\nhave  finally  disposed  of  the  suit   or   other
\nproceedings.   So, the test is laid down as to when
\nthe High Court can interfere with the interim order
\npassed by the Court below and it categorically lays
\ndown that had the order  impugned  been  passed  in
\nfavour  of  the  aggrieved  party,  it  would  have
\nfinally disposed of the suit or other  proceedings,
\nIn   this   situation  alone  revision  against  an
\ninterlocutory order would be maintainable  and  not
\notherwise.\n<\/p>\n
 I am in agreement with the view taken by
\nthe learned Single Judge in the case cited supra.\n<\/p>\n
 3. The  next judgment dealing with the same
\nquestion, is by the same learned Judge and  it  has
\nbeen  rendered  prior  in  point  of  time than the
\njudgment, referred to  hereinabove.    The  learned
\nJudge,   while  deciding  the  batch  of  petitions
\ndealing with the identical question, in the case of
\n“Rajabhau Rahate Vs.  Dinkar Ingole” 2002(3) M.L.J.
\n921″ has had an occasion to have  a  retrospect  of
\nthe  provisions  contained  in  Section  115 of the
\nC.P.C., as it stood prior to the  Amending  Act  of
\n1976  and  thereafter,  with a view to find out the
\nlegislative intent, in amending the Civil Procedure
\nCode, by an amending Act of 1999,  which  has  come
\ninto force from 1st July, 2002.  It is observed,
\n  ” Then, in 1999, again extensive
\namendments  were  made  to  the Code of Civil
\nProcedure  including  several  reforms,   all
\naimed at curtailing the delays in disposal of
\nthe  litigation,  to  which the Code of Civil
\nProcedure was  applicable.     It   is   also
\nnecessary  to note that all the amendments of
\n1976 as also the amendment of  1999  or  2002
\nwere  basically  made to substantially reduce
\nthe delay caused in disposal  of  the  matter
\nbecause   of   several   procedural  hurdles.
\nAttempt was made to remove those  hurdles  in
\n1976.   The  revisional  powers under Section
\n115 were  circumscribed  to  an  extent,  but
\ncontemplated   results  did  not  occur  and,
\ntherefore,  further  amendment  was   thought
\nnecessary in 2002.”\n<\/p>\n
 After noting the  legislative  intention
\nbehind  amending  Section
\n115,  the  learned Judge
\nproceeded to interpret the amended Section
\n115  and
\ncategorically held, <\/p>\n
 “Taking  into  consideration  the  above
\ndiscussion and the ratio  of  the  judgments  cited
\nabove, I am of the view that :\n<\/p>\n
 (i) The provisions of Section
\n115 as
\namended with  effect  from   1st
\nJuly, 2002 are applicable  from
\nthat date to all proceedings
\npending in this Court under Section<\/p>\n
115 of the Civil Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) There is no right in a  litigant
\nto move    an   application   under
\nSection
\n115 of the        Civil
\nProcedure   Code   for   exercise   of
\njurisdiction mentioned therein.\n<\/p>\n
 (iii) That it being  not  a  right  as
\nheld above, there  is no question of
\nit being saved byre course      to
\nprovisions of Section 6 of the
\nGeneral Clauses Act, 1897.\n<\/p>\n
 (iv) The   provisions   of    section
\n32(2)(i) do not either by direct
\nlegislation     or     by    necessary
\nimplication save any such  proceedings
\nfrom  being  affected by the amendment
\nwith effect from 1-7-2002.\n<\/p>\n
 (v) As a consequence of  the  above,
\nall revision  applications,  whether
\npending as on 1st July, 2002  or
\nfiled  thereafter,   will  have  to  be
\ndealt with strictly  in  accordance
\nwith the provisions of  Section
\n115<\/span>
\nof the Civil Procedure Code
\nwith effect from 1st July, 2002.\n<\/p>\n
 (Vi) As    a    further   consequence\nthereof, no revision     application\n<\/pre>\n
against an interlocutory order will
\nbeen tertainable  even if the order
\nis made prior to 1st  July  2002
\nas moving this Court Section
\n115 is
\nheld not to be a right.\n<\/p>\n
4. In  view  of the findings reached by the
\nlearned Single Judge that the provisions of Section<\/p>\n
115 as amended w.e.f.    1-7-2002,  are  applicable
\nfrom  that  date to all proceedings pending in this
\nCourt under  Section
\n115  of  the  C.P.C.,  it  is
\nevident  that  all  matters, whether filed prior to
\n1st July, 2002 or thereafter, need to be decided at
\nthe touch-stone of the amended provisions contained
\nin Section
\n115 and if that be so, then, unless  and
\nuntil  the  very  interlocutory order satisfies the
\ntest laid  down  in  the  proviso,  i.e.    if  the
\nimpugned  order  had  been  passed in favour of the
\nRevision  Petitioner,  would   have   resulted   in
\ntermination  of  the suit or other proceedings, the
\nrevision would not be maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
 5. I   also   have  assistance  of  4  more
\njudgments, touching the very question, and  next  I
\nproceed to refer to the judgment by another learned
\nSingle  Judge  of  this  Court  reported in 2002(4)
\nMh.L.J.  913 ” Zahida Nizamuddian Dalal and  others
\nVs.  Abidali  Jaffer  Ali  Syyed  and others”.  The
\nlearned Judge  has  also  interpreted  the  amended
\nSection
\n115  having  regard  to  the  legislative
\nintent.  In para.  26 of the judgment, the  learned
\nJudge has observed,
\n  “The   whole   purpose  behind  imposing
\nrestrictions upon the exercise of revisional powers
\nbeing to curtail obstruction to the speedy disposal
\nof the  suit  and  having  noticed  the  revisional
\ninterference    being    main    cause   for   such
\nobstructions,  as  already   observed   above,   to
\ninterpret expression “other proceedings” to include
\nsupplementary proceedings in a suit will defeat the
\nvery  purpose  behind the incorporation of the said
\nproviso to Section
\n115 of the Civil Procedure Code.
\nThe learned Judge has  explained  the  judgment  in
\n“Rajabhau Rahate”  reported in 2002(3) Mh.L.J.  921
\n(supra) and in para.37 of the judgment the  learned
\nJudge has concluded the issue by laying down that
\n”  Considering the law as stated above, the impugned
\norder  being  an  interlocutory   order   and   any
\ninterference    therein   would   not   result   in
\nterminating of the suit, no revision  lies  against
\nthe same and this revision application therefore is
\nliable  to  be  rejected  and is hereby accordingly
\ndismissed.”\n<\/p>\n
 So, the view taken by the learned Single
\nJudge  in  “Rajabhaus case” has been endorsed with
\napproval  in  ”  Zahida  Nizamuddin  &  others  Vs.
\nAbidali Jafar and others ” by Justice Khandeparkar.\n<\/p>\n
 6. The Karnataka High Court as well, in the
\njudgment  “K.R.\n<\/p>\n
Subbaraju Vs.   M\/s.    Vasavi  Trading  Company   &
\nothers”,  has interpreted Section
\n115 as amended by
\nAct  No.   46\/1999 and has held that  the  revisional
\njurisdiction   is   materially  restricted  by  the
\namendment.  It is  held  that  even  if  the  order
\nimpugned  suffers  from  jurisdictional  error, the
\nsame cannot be interfered unless it be  shown  that
\nif  the  impugned order was passed in favour of the
\nparty applying for revision, it would have  finally
\ndisposed of  the  suit  or  other proceedings.  The
\nsaid judgment was in  regard  to  an  order  passed
\nunder Order 6 Rule 17 i.e.  amendment of the plaint
\nand  as  the  test contained in the proviso was not
\nsatisfied, the Court declined to interfere and held
\nthat the revision petition was not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
 7. The  next judgment is that of the Madhya
\nPradesh High Court.  The learned Single  Judge  has
\nheld in   ”  Phoolsingh  Vs.    Mavla  and  others”
\n, that the  scope  of
\ninterference  in  revision  is  restricted  by  the
\nproviso substituted by the Amending  Act  of  1999.
\nIn  the  said judgment, it is further held that the
\namendment applies to all cases pending, on the date
\non which the amendment act comes into force.\n<\/p>\n
 8. There is one more judgment dealing  with
\nthe said  question,  reported in AIR 2002 All.  14.
\nIn paras.8 and 9 of the said  judgment,  the  Court
\nobserved :\n<\/p>\n
 ” I have considered the  arguments.
\nI  am  afraid  that  no  relief  can  be
\ngranted  to  the  revisionist  in  these
\nrevisions  in  view of the proviso added
\nto Section
\n115 C.P.C.  by  Amending  Act
\n No.     46   of   2002   enforced  w.e.f.\n<\/p>\n
1-7-2002   which   is   as   follows   :\n<\/p>\n
  “…..”(cited supra) <\/p>\n
 According to this proviso therefore, the
\norder  cannot be varied, reversed in the
\nexercise of  powers  under  Section
\n115<\/span>
\nC.P.C.   for  the  reason  that  had the
\norder  been  made  in  favour   of   the
\nrevisionist  it  would  not have finally
\ndisposed of the suits.”\n<\/p>\n
 9. In the  above  referred  judgments,  the
\nview  is  expressed  by  all  the learned Judges
\nholding that there is no right in the  litigant,
\nmuch  less,  a substantive right to approach the
\nHigh Court under Section
\n115 of C.P.C.   in  its
\nrevisional jurisdiction.    The  jurisdiction of
\nthe High Court contained in Section
\n115  is  the
\npower  of  the  Court  and is not a right of the
\nlitigant.\n<\/p>\n
 In view of the above discussion, I am of
\nthe  clear  opinion  that  the  present Revision
\nPetitions challenging the  interlocutory  orders
\ncannot  be  entertained  in  exercise  of powers
\nunder Section
\n115 and to put it in other  words,
\nthe Revision Petitions are not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
 10. The learned Advocates appearing for  the
\nRevision   Petitioners   sought   permission  to
\nconvert  the  Revision   Petitions   into   Writ
\nPetitions  under Article 227 of the Constitution
\nof India.  The question is,  should  this  Court
\npermit  a  revision  to  be  converted into Writ
\nPetition, is again, no longer open for a debate.
\nIn a judgment reported in 2002(4) Mh.L.J.  597 ”
\nBharatkumar Agrawal Vs.    M\/s.    Anita   Trust
\nthrough Ku.     Preeti  Patel  and  another”, the
\nlearned Single Judge of this Court has held,
\n  ”  Viewed  from any point, therefore, it
\nis not possible for me to accede to  the
\nrequest  that Revision Application filed
\nunder section
\n115 of the C.P.C.   can  be
\nconverted into  a  writ petition.  After
\noperation of the  amended  section
\n115,
\nrevision     application    must    end.
\nProceedings  must   terminate   as   the
\npetition is   not   maintainable.     To
\nentertain a  not  maintainable  petition
\nand   say   on  it  that  it  should  be
\ntransposed as a writ petition to get the
\njurisdiction in  order  to  nullify  the
\nlegislative  intent  is  such  a  course
\nwhich the Supreme Court  has  positively
\ndisapproved  in  the  case of ” State of
\nHimachal Pradesh Vs.  Raja Mahendra Pal,
\nCited supra.  When both the urisdictions
\nare co-existing and are available to the
\nlitigants,  to  say  or  to   permit   a
\nlitigant  after six years of pendency or
\nfor that matter six years of pendency or
\nfor that matter six days of pendency  of
\nan application which by operation of law
\nis not maintainable , be permitted to be
\nmade  a petition under Article 227 would
\nbe setting  at  naught  the  legislative
\nmandates.”\n<\/p>\n
 11. So,  basically  if  this  Court  has  no
\njurisdiction to entertain a revision, this Court
\nwould be lacking a further jurisdiction to allow
\nconversion  of revision into a writ petition and
\nin this view of the matter, I am not inclined to
\nfavourably  consider  the  prayer  made  by  the
\nlearned  Advocates  for  the petitioners seeking
\nconversion of the revision into a writ petition.
\nLastly, it was vehemently  submitted  by
\nthe  learned  Advocates for the petitioners that
\nthe  petitioners  are  entitled  to  invoke  the
\npowers of this Court, by moving a petition under
\nArticle 227 of the Constitution of India as they
\ncontended  that  in  most  of  the  matters, the
\nimpugned orders suffers from error of  law  that
\nis  manifest  on  the  face of the record and in
\nthis  situation,  they  would  be  entitled   to
\nagitate their grievance under Article 227 of the
\nConstitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
 There is  no  doubt  that  amendment  to
\nSection
\n115  by Act  No.   46\/1999 will not affect<\/span>
\nthe powers conferred on  the  High  Court  under
\nArticle  227,  but  the  said  power  has  to be
\nexercised only in  appropriate  cases.    It  is
\nsubmitted  by  the Advocates for the petitioners
\nthat the interim orders are operating for  years
\nand  years,  pending the revision petitions, and
\nthe same should be continued  for  a  reasonable
\nperiod,  so as to enable the petitioners to move
\npetitions under Article 227 of the Constitution,
\nas otherwise, it would result in miscarriage  of
\njustice.   No  doubt,  there is substance in the
\nsaid contention.  True it is, that  power  under
\nArticle  227 of the Constitution is analogous to
\nthe  power  of  superintendence   contained   in
\nSection
\n115  of  the  C.P.C.    A power has been
\nconferred on the High Court under Article 227 of
\nthe Constitution, to keep the subordinate courts
\nwithin the bounds of their authority.  The power
\nof judicial review is enshrined in  Article  226
\nand  227 of the Constitution and it is a part of
\nthe basic  structure  of  the  constitution  and
\nhence,  amendment  to  Section
\n115  in  no way,
\nencroaches upon the power contained  in  Article
\n227  of  the  Constitution and the said power is
\nwholly unaffected.  I  am  not  called  upon  to
\nopine,  while deciding these revision petitions,
\nas to under which situation the  High  Court  in
\nexercise of   power   under   Art.    227  would
\ninterfere with an order under challenge but,  as
\nit  is  evident, that a writ petition under Art.
\n227  would  be  maintainable  even  against   an
\ninterlocutory  order, which does not satisfy the
\ntest laid down in the proviso to Section
\n115 as
\namended.  It would be in the interest of justice
\nto  continue the status quo for a limited period
\nso as to enable the litigants to  approach  this
\nCourt  in exercise of jurisdiction under Article
\n227 of the Constitution of India  by  moving  an
\nappropriate petition.   To substantiate the last
\nsubmission, the learned  Advocates  have  placed
\nreliance  on  the  judgment  reported in 2003(1)
\nMh.L.J.  275 ” Prabhudas Gedam and  another  Vs.
\nMunicipal   Council,  Bhadravati”,  wherein  the
\nlearned   Single   Judge    has    taken    into
\nconsideration  catena  of  Apex  Court judgments
\nincluding the judgment in  “L.    Chandrakumars
\ncase”.   Therefore,  even  if  this Court has no
\njurisdiction under Section
\n115, still status quo
\nis ordered for a reasonable time in exercise  of
\ninherent  powers contained in Section 151 of the
\nC.P.C.\n<\/p>\n
 12. In the result,  the  Revision  Petitions
\n(falling in Group A which are heard finally) are
\ndismissed.  Rule  is discharged.  There shall be
\nno orders as to costs.  Civil Applications ,  if
\nany, filed in these revisions, stand disposed of.
\nIn  so  far  as  Revision  Petitions (in
\nGroup B are concerned) the  same  are  dismissed
\ninlimine.\n<\/p>\n
 However,  (in  Group  A  and   Group   B
\nmatters)  status quo as on today to continue for
\na period of 15 days.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Babasaheb S\/O. Dhondiba Sule And … vs Asruba S\/O. Dhondiba Sule, … on 11 February, 2003 Author: A Deshpande Bench: A Deshpande JUDGMENT A.P. Deshpande, J. 1. A common question of law about the maintainability of the Revision Petitions directed against interlocutory orders cropped up after the Parliament introduced extensive amendment to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-210268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nBabasaheb S\/O. Dhondiba Sule And ... vs Asruba S\/O. Dhondiba Sule, ... on 11 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Babasaheb S\/O. Dhondiba Sule And ... vs Asruba S\/O. Dhondiba Sule, ... on 11 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-03-20T16:41:23+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Babasaheb S\\\/O. Dhondiba Sule And … vs Asruba S\\\/O. Dhondiba Sule, … on 11 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-20T16:41:23+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3221,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003\",\"name\":\"Babasaheb S\\\/O. Dhondiba Sule And ... vs Asruba S\\\/O. Dhondiba Sule, ... on 11 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-03-20T16:41:23+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Babasaheb S\\\/O. Dhondiba Sule And … vs Asruba S\\\/O. Dhondiba Sule, … on 11 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Babasaheb S\/O. Dhondiba Sule And ... vs Asruba S\/O. Dhondiba Sule, ... on 11 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Babasaheb S\/O. Dhondiba Sule And ... vs Asruba S\/O. Dhondiba Sule, ... on 11 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-03-20T16:41:23+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Babasaheb S\/O. Dhondiba Sule And … vs Asruba S\/O. Dhondiba Sule, … on 11 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-20T16:41:23+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003"},"wordCount":3221,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003","name":"Babasaheb S\/O. Dhondiba Sule And ... vs Asruba S\/O. Dhondiba Sule, ... on 11 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-03-20T16:41:23+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/babasaheb-so-dhondiba-sule-and-vs-asruba-so-dhondiba-sule-on-11-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Babasaheb S\/O. Dhondiba Sule And … vs Asruba S\/O. Dhondiba Sule, … on 11 February, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=210268"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/210268\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=210268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=210268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=210268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}