{"id":77894,"date":"2002-08-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-08-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002"},"modified":"2017-07-11T22:06:46","modified_gmt":"2017-07-11T16:36:46","slug":"nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002","title":{"rendered":"Nagorao Alias Arun S\/O Narayan &#8230; vs Narayan S\/O Nagan Yerawar And Sou. &#8230; on 29 August, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Bombay High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Nagorao Alias Arun S\/O Narayan &#8230; vs Narayan S\/O Nagan Yerawar And Sou. &#8230; on 29 August, 2002<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 Bom 178, 2003 (2) BomCR 148, 2002 (4) MhLj 615<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: V Palshikar<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: V Palshikar<\/div>\n<\/p>\n<pre><\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p> V.G. Palshikar, J.<\/p>\n<p> 1. This revision application is directed against<br \/>\nthe order passed in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 6\/95 passed on<br \/>\n6-8-1996 below (Exh.114) in Regular Civil Suit No. 56\/92<br \/>\nwhereby the order of status-quo was granted. The learned<br \/>\nappellate Court vacating the order of status-quo granted<br \/>\ninjunction in favour of the appellants before it and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the unsuccessful respondent has come up in<br \/>\nRevision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.\n<\/p>\n<p> 2. When this matter came up for arguments, it was<br \/>\nnoticed that several revisions of such nature are pending<br \/>\nin this Court. All these revisions challenged the orders<br \/>\npassed by the trial Court and the appellate Court either<br \/>\nwhen they are concurrent or when they are reversing. The<br \/>\nlearned Counsel appearing in the above revision<br \/>\napplication No. 803\/96 desired for some time to argue the<br \/>\nmatter. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned till<br \/>\ntoday. In the meantime, the office also identified about<br \/>\n150 revision applications wherein identical question of<br \/>\nlaw arose, namely, maintainability of all such revision<br \/>\napplications after 1-7-2002 when the amended provisions<br \/>\nof Section 115 of the C.P.C. came into operation and the<br \/>\namended proviso substantially curtailed the revisional<br \/>\njurisdiction of this Court and prohibited entertainment<br \/>\nof revision application in any interim or interlocutory<br \/>\norder. Again this being important question of law, the<br \/>\nmatter was adjourned and learned members of the Bar were<br \/>\ninvited to address this Court all the facets of this<br \/>\nquestion. Accordingly, Shri M.G. Bhangde, Shri R.L.<br \/>\nKhapre, Shri P.N. Kothari, Shri V.P. Panpalia, Shri<br \/>\nA.P. Wachasunder and Shri S.P. Kshirsagar appearing for<br \/>\nvarious applications in the revision applications<br \/>\ncontended that such revision applications are<br \/>\nmaintainable in spite of the amendments with effect from<br \/>\n1-7-2002. Shri S.R. Deshpande, Shri Rajeev Chhabra and<br \/>\nShri L.G. Deshpande, learned Advocates submitted that<br \/>\nafter the amendment, there is no question of such<br \/>\nrevision applications being maintained and, therefore,<br \/>\nprayed that all these revision applications be dismissed<br \/>\nas not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. We have to first note the submissions made by<br \/>\nthe learned Counsel in this behalf. Shri M.G. Bhangde,<br \/>\nlearned Counsel appearing for the applicants, submitted<br \/>\nthat the proviso to Section 115 as amended upto date<br \/>\ncovers only four situations, i.e. (i) order made in the<br \/>\ncourse of a suit, (ii) order made in the course of other<br \/>\nproceedings, (iii) order deciding any issue in the course<br \/>\nof a suit and (iv) order deciding any issue in any other<br \/>\nproceedings. His contention is that the proviso is<br \/>\nattracted only in relation to the above four categories<br \/>\nand, therefore, no revision application under Section 115<br \/>\nof the C.P. Code will be maintainable after 1-7-2002 only<br \/>\nin cases where the above four contingencies occur. In<br \/>\nall other cases, according to the learned Counsel, a<br \/>\nrevision application will be maintainable. He then<br \/>\ncontended that an order under Order 39 Rules 1 &amp; 2 of the<br \/>\nC.P. Code is not an interim order in any way as it finally<br \/>\ndecides the proceedings, namely, the appeal against order<br \/>\nand consequently, it is not an order either in the course<br \/>\nof the suit or in the course of other proceedings, it<br \/>\nbeing a final order in the other proceedings and,<br \/>\ntherefore, the revision application is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p> 4. Shri R.L. Khapre, the learned Counsel appearing<br \/>\nfor the applicants, submitted that he adopts the<br \/>\narguments of Shri Bhangde and he placed heavy reliance on<br \/>\na judgment of this Court in Pundlik Balkrushna Patil and<br \/>\nothers .vs. Arun Shankar Patil and others reported in<br \/>\n1985 Mh. L.J. 296 to contend that the revision<br \/>\napplication is maintainable. I will advert to this<br \/>\njudgment at a later stage.\n<\/p>\n<p> 5. Relying on the provisions of Order 39 and Rules<br \/>\n1 &amp; 2 of the Order 39, Shri P.N. Kothari, the learned<br \/>\nCounsel contended that an order under Rule 1 or 2 of<br \/>\nOrder 39 adjudicates, though prima facie, on the rights<br \/>\nof the parties, in an application under that proviso and,<br \/>\ntherefore, though temporary it is a final adjudication of<br \/>\nrights and, therefore, revision is maintainable. The<br \/>\nproceedings are not interlocutory in nature and,<br \/>\ntherefore, there is no question of revision not being<br \/>\nmaintained.\n<\/p>\n<p> 6. Shri Panpalia, learned Counsel appearing on<br \/>\nbehalf of the applicants, submitted that the very<br \/>\nconstruction of the provisions of Order 39 denotes that<br \/>\nthe proceedings for temporary injunction are not of<br \/>\ninterlocutory nature. Relying on the title of Order 39,<br \/>\nhe pointed out that Order 39 provides for temporary<br \/>\ninjunctions and interlocutory orders. He then took me<br \/>\nthrough the provisions of Rules 1 to 6 and submitted that<br \/>\nthey apply to temporary injunctions and under a<br \/>\nsub-heading interlocutory orders that can be passed by a<br \/>\nCourt under Order 39 are mentioned. According to him,<br \/>\ntherefore, an interlocutory order is only that which is<br \/>\nmentioned from Rule 6 onwards under Order 39 and an order<br \/>\ngranting or rejecting temporary injunction is not an<br \/>\ninterlocutory order and, therefore, revision under<br \/>\nSection 115 in the circumstances is maintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p> 7. Countering these submissions, Shri S.R.<br \/>\nDeshpande, the learned Advocate submitted that either by<br \/>\ngrant or refusal of an interim order by way of temporary<br \/>\ninjunction the suit is not terminated or finally decided.<br \/>\nThe grant or refusal is only for the disposal of the<br \/>\nsuit. It is a step taken by the Court to keep alive the<br \/>\nlis and protect the suit property. Merely because an<br \/>\nappeal is provided against an order of such interim<br \/>\nnature, it cannot acquire finality of any kind in any<br \/>\nmanner. To the same effect was the submission of Shri<br \/>\nRajeev Chhabra, the learned Advocate, who submitted that<br \/>\neven if the appeal is decided by the Appellate Authority<br \/>\nunder Order 41 Rule 1, that decision on an appeal does<br \/>\nnot decide the suit which is the main litigation and in<br \/>\nthat main litigation, temporary injunction is granted to<br \/>\nkeep alive the lis and protect the suit property and,<br \/>\ntherefore, merely because the appeal under Order 43 Rule<br \/>\n1 C.P.C. is finally decided, it does not become a final<br \/>\norder taking it outside the purview of the provisions of<br \/>\nSection 115 or making it revisable under Section 115 of<br \/>\nthe C.P. Code.\n<\/p>\n<p> 8. Shri L.G. Deshpande, the learned Advocate<br \/>\nappearing on behalf of the non-applicants, submitted that<br \/>\nby the Amending Act of 1999, the provisions of Section<br \/>\n115 were reconstituted. If the object for reconstitution<br \/>\nis considered, it will be seen that the object was<br \/>\ndecidedly to reduce the delay caused in disposal of a<br \/>\nlitigation and, therefore, reducing the number of interim<br \/>\nremedies available. According to the learned Counsel,<br \/>\nprovisions of Order 39 are obviously interim measures<br \/>\nthat can be taken by a Court and any order made therein<br \/>\nis obviously interim in nature. Merely because an appeal<br \/>\nis provided against that order, it cannot now be said<br \/>\nafter reconstitution of the Section by the 1999 Amending<br \/>\nAct that in spite of the clear mandate of the Legislature<br \/>\na revision application against such order passed by the<br \/>\nappellate Authority under Order 43 Rule 1 would be<br \/>\nmaintainable.\n<\/p>\n<p> 9. I have to consider these rival contentions in<br \/>\nthe light of the several provisions of the Civil<br \/>\nProcedure Code and several decisions cited at the Bar as<br \/>\nalso noticed by me. I would again like to consider the<br \/>\nprovisions of Section 115 of the C.P. Code as they<br \/>\ntraveled via amendments from the inception of the Civil<br \/>\nProcedure Code till date. Section 115 from 1908 till<br \/>\n1976 read as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;S. 115. The High Court may call for the record<br \/>\nof any case which has been decided by<br \/>\nany Court subordinate to such High Court<br \/>\nand in which no appeal lies thereto, and<br \/>\nif such subordinate Court appears-\n<\/p>\n<p> (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not<br \/>\nvested in it by law, or  <\/p>\n<p> (b) to have failed to exercise a<br \/>\njurisdiction so vested, or  <\/p>\n<p> (c) to have acted in the exercise of its<br \/>\njurisdiction illegally or with material<br \/>\nirregularity,  <\/p>\n<p> the High Court may make such order in the<br \/>\ncase as it thinks fit.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> The High Court, therefore, had the power or the<br \/>\njurisdiction to revise the orders of the subordinate<br \/>\nCourts if they were such as are covered by clauses (a),\n<\/p>\n<p>(b) &amp; (c) of Section 115 quoted above. Till 1976 there<br \/>\nwere no fetters on the powers of the High Court and any<br \/>\norder passed by any Court subordinate to it was liable to<br \/>\nbe revised if it answered to the description mentioned in<br \/>\nany of the three clauses in Section 115. About this<br \/>\nposition, there never was any doubt. However, by passage<br \/>\nof time the arrears kept mounting and it was deemed<br \/>\nnecessary by the Parliament of India to curtail delays<br \/>\nthat occurred in pending suits. Extensive amendments,<br \/>\ntherefore, were made to the provisions of the Civil<br \/>\nProcedure Code, 1908 introducing several reforms for<br \/>\nreducing the delay in disposal of the suits. We are<br \/>\nconcerned in this revision with the reforms introduced by<br \/>\nthe Parliament in the matter of revisional powers of this<br \/>\nCourt. Section 115 of the C.P. Code was amended and<br \/>\ncertain restrictions were placed on the power of the High<br \/>\nCourt. The Section as amended in 1976 reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;S. 115(1) The High Court may call for the<br \/>\nrecord of any case which has been decided<br \/>\nby any Court subordinate to such High<br \/>\nCourt and in which no appeal lies thereto,<br \/>\nand if such subordinate Court appears, <\/p>\n<p> (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not<br \/>\nvested in it by law, or  <\/p>\n<p> (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction<br \/>\nso vested, or  <\/p>\n<p> (c) to have acted in the exercise of its<br \/>\njurisdiction illegally or with material<br \/>\nirregularity,  <\/p>\n<p> the High Court may make such order in the case<br \/>\nit thinks fit;\n<\/p>\n<p> Provided that the High Court shall not, under<br \/>\nthis section, vary or reverse any order<br \/>\nmade or any order deciding an issue, in<br \/>\nthe course of a suit or other proceeding<br \/>\nexcept where &#8211;\n<\/p>\n<p> (a) the order, if it had been made in favour<br \/>\nof the party applying for revision, would<br \/>\nhave finally disposed of the suit or other<br \/>\nproceeding, or  <\/p>\n<p> (b) the order, if allowed to stand, would<br \/>\noccasion a failure of justice or cause<br \/>\nirreparable injury to the party against<br \/>\nwhom it was made.\n<\/p>\n<p> (2) The High Court shall not, under this<br \/>\nsection vary or reverse any decree or<br \/>\norder against which an appeal lies either<br \/>\nto the High Court or to any Court<br \/>\nsubordinate thereto.\n<\/p>\n<p> Explanation.&#8211; In this section, the expression<br \/>\n&#8220;any case which has been decided&#8221; includes<br \/>\nany order made, or any order deciding an<br \/>\nissue, in the course of a suit or other<br \/>\nproceeding.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> From the above, it will be seen that by the amendments of<br \/>\n1976, Section 115 was renumbered and it was divided into<br \/>\ntwo sub-sections. Sub-section (1) retained the original<br \/>\nSection 115 to it, the amendment added in the proviso and<br \/>\nsub-section (2) was further added putting a positive<br \/>\nrestriction on the right of the High Court to revise an<br \/>\norder in cases where an appeal lay from that order either<br \/>\nto the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.<br \/>\nFrom the amendments, it will, therefore, be seen that<br \/>\nearlier under Section 115 the only fetter was that the<br \/>\nHigh Court could not exercise the revisional powers in<br \/>\ncases where the order impugned was such in which no<br \/>\nappeal lay thereto meaning thereby to the High Court. If<br \/>\nan appeal was maintainable to the High Court from that<br \/>\norder, revisional jurisdiction could not be exercised by<br \/>\nthe High Court. This position was altered and the High<br \/>\nCourt was prohibited from entertaining a revision<br \/>\napplication against any order against which an appeal lay<br \/>\neither to the High Court or any Court subordinate<br \/>\nthereto. By adding this sub-section, a revision was made<br \/>\nnot maintainable in cases where appeal lies either to the<br \/>\nHigh Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. After<br \/>\nthe amendment of Section 115 by the Amending Act, 1976,<br \/>\ntherefore, it was specifically provided that the High<br \/>\nCourt shall not under this Section vary or reverse any<br \/>\ndecree or order against which an appeal lies either to<br \/>\nthe High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto.<br \/>\nPrior to introduction of this sub-section, there were<br \/>\nseveral cases in which an appeal lay to the District<br \/>\nCourt under the provisions of Section 104 of the Civil<br \/>\nProcedure Code read with Order 43 Rule 1 of C.P. Code and<br \/>\ndepending upon the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court<br \/>\nconcerned, such appeals lay to the High Court also. The<br \/>\noriginal Section 115 as it stood prior to 1976 prohibited<br \/>\ninterference by the High Court only in cases in which no<br \/>\nappeal lies thereto. Till 1976 it was, therefore, open<br \/>\nfor the High Court to revise an order in which no appeal<br \/>\nlies to it. It could, therefore, till then entertain a<br \/>\nrevision application in case of an order passed in appeal<br \/>\nunder Order 43 Rule 1 if no further appeal lay to it.<br \/>\nThis jurisdiction of the High Court was curtailed by<br \/>\nadding sub-section (2) to Section 115 and it was provided<br \/>\nthat the High Court shall not under this Section vary or<br \/>\nreverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies<br \/>\neither to the High Court or any subordinate Court. After<br \/>\nthe addition, therefore, an order against which an appeal<br \/>\nis maintainable before the District Court is made not<br \/>\nrevisable directly by the High Court but there was<br \/>\nnothing in these amended provisions to prevent the High<br \/>\nCourt from considering in revision an order made by the<br \/>\nAppellate Authority as no appeal lay to it as<br \/>\ncontemplated by Section 115(1). It is obvious from all<br \/>\nthis, therefore, that first inroad was made on the powers<br \/>\nof the High Court to revise the orders of the subordinate<br \/>\nCourt by amendment of 1976. Certain restrictions were<br \/>\nput on the powers of the High Court to revise any orders<br \/>\nof the Court subordinate thereto.\n<\/p>\n<p> 10. It was after this amendment in 1976 came into<br \/>\nforce that the question of extent of jurisdiction of this<br \/>\nCourt under Section 115 was considered by this Court in a<br \/>\ndecision in Pundlik Balkrushna Patil and others .vs.<br \/>\nArun Shankar Patil and others reported in 1985 MH.L.J.\n<\/p>\n<p>296. In that case this Court took the view on scrutiny<br \/>\nof the provisions of Section 115(2) as it then stood that<br \/>\nthe order sought to be revised having been passed under<br \/>\nOrder 43 of the C.P. Code was not appealable either to the<br \/>\nHigh Court or to any other Court subordinate to it and,<br \/>\ntherefore, a revision was held maintainable. There is<\/p>\n<p>yet another reason why the revision in those<br \/>\ncircumstances was maintainable. It will be seen with<br \/>\nreference to the provisions of Section 115 as amended in<br \/>\n1976 that the proviso had two clauses to it and with<br \/>\nreference to the second clause, i.e. clause (b) it was<br \/>\npermissible for the High Court to interfere in revision<br \/>\nin a matter where gross injustice was done. The clause<br \/>\nread as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;(b)the order, if allowed to stand, would<br \/>\noccasion a failure of justice or cause<br \/>\nirreparable injury to the party against whom<br \/>\nit was made.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> The ban imposed by the proviso was, therefore, not total<br \/>\nand hence, interference was possible. This was the<br \/>\nposition in relation to maintainability of revision till<br \/>\nthe provisions of Section 115 of the C.P. Code were<br \/>\nfurther amended by the Act of 1999. By that Act, proviso<br \/>\nto Section 115(1) was restructured, sub-section (2)<br \/>\nthough kept intact was reintroduced and sub-section (3)<br \/>\nwas added. The Section after amendment reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;S. 115(1) The High Court may call for the<br \/>\nrecord of any case which has been decided<br \/>\nby any Court subordinate to such High<br \/>\nCourt and in which no appeal lies thereto,<br \/>\nand if such subordinate Court appears, <\/p>\n<p> (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not<br \/>\nvested in it by law, or  <\/p>\n<p> (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction<br \/>\nso vested, or  <\/p>\n<p> (c) to have acted in the exercise of its<br \/>\njurisdiction illegally or with material<br \/>\nirregularity,  <\/p>\n<p> the High Court may make such order in the case<br \/>\nit thinks fit;\n<\/p>\n<p> Provided that the High Court shall not, under<br \/>\nthis section, vary or reverse any order<br \/>\nmade or any order deciding an issue, in<br \/>\nthe course of a suit or other proceeding<br \/>\nexcept where the order, if it had been<br \/>\nmade in favour of the party applying for<br \/>\nrevision, would have finally disposed of<br \/>\nthe suit or other proceedings.\n<\/p>\n<p> (2) The High Court shall not, under this<br \/>\nsection vary or reverse any decree or<br \/>\norder against which an appeal lies either<br \/>\nto the High Court or to any Court<br \/>\nsubordinate thereto.\n<\/p>\n<p> (3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of<br \/>\nsuit or other proceeding before the court<br \/>\nexcept where such suit or other proceeding<br \/>\nis stayed by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n<p> Explanation.&#8211; In this section, the expression<br \/>\n&#8220;any case which has been decided&#8221; includes<br \/>\nany order made, or any order deciding an<br \/>\nissue, in the course of a suit or other<br \/>\nproceeding.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> It will be seen that the newly introduced proviso is<br \/>\nrestructured from the old proviso, clause (b) thereof is<br \/>\ndeleted and (a) is merged in the proviso, thereby<br \/>\nproviding that the High Court shall not vary or reverse<br \/>\nany order made in the course of a suit or proceeding<br \/>\nexcept where the order if it had been made in favour of<br \/>\nthe party applying for revision, would have finally<br \/>\ndisposed of the suit or other proceedings. The removal<br \/>\nof clause (b) of the proviso is significant and the<br \/>\nsubmissions made at the Bar mentioned above are to be<br \/>\nconsidered in light of these amendments. The main<br \/>\nsubmission that the proviso to Section 115 covers only<br \/>\nfour situations quoted above and the proviso is attracted<br \/>\nonly in those situations is based basically on the<br \/>\npremise that an order made under Order 39 Rules 1 &amp; 2 is<br \/>\nnot an interim order.\n<\/p>\n<p> 11. It is, however, not possible for me to accept<br \/>\nthe contention that order made under Order 39 Rules 1 &amp; 2<br \/>\nis not an interim order. Bare look at the heading of<br \/>\nOrder 39 in the C.P. Code is enough for this purpose. It<br \/>\nreads :-\n<\/p>\n<p> &#8220;TEMPORARY INJUNCTIONS AND INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> The injunctions granted under the Order by nature of the<br \/>\nprovisions of law are temporary. It is not, therefore,<br \/>\npermissible in law to hold that though the provision<br \/>\nunder which it is made is called temporary, it is not a<br \/>\ntemporary order. Apart from this, the fact that the<br \/>\norders under Order 39 are temporary or interim or<br \/>\ninterlocutory is established beyond reasonable doubt.<br \/>\nThe Supreme Court in <a href=\"\/doc\/282494\/\">The Saharanpur Cooperative Cane<br \/>\nDevelopment Union Ltd. and others vs. The Lord Krishna<br \/>\nSugar Mills Ltd. and others<\/a>  has observed in paragraph no. 13 as under :<br \/>\n  &#8220;13. After hearing learned advocates<br \/>\nappearing for the different parties we have no<br \/>\ndoubt in our mind that this is a case where we<br \/>\nshould not interfere with the stay order<br \/>\npassed by the High Court. For one thing it is<br \/>\nonly in the most exceptional circumstances<br \/>\nthat this Court ever agrees to interfere with<br \/>\nan interim working order passed by the High<br \/>\nCourts. The principal contentions of the<br \/>\ndifferent parties in this case are yet to be<br \/>\nheard and adjudicated by the High Court. It<br \/>\nis not desirable that in delivering this<br \/>\njudgment we make any observation which might<br \/>\ninfluence the High Court in any manner in<br \/>\npassing the final order in the writ<br \/>\napplication. Both the parties have sought to<br \/>\nmake out before us that the stand they are<br \/>\ntaking in this matter is the only possible<br \/>\nstand that one can possibly take in the light<br \/>\nof the relevant statutory provisions. It is<br \/>\napparent that the time for deciding which of<br \/>\nthese rival contentions is correct has not yet<br \/>\ncome. In the circumstances, we do not see how<br \/>\nwe can interfere with the interim order passed<br \/>\nby the High Court. The High Court apparently<br \/>\ntook into consideration the fact that any<br \/>\nindefinite postponement of the payment of the<br \/>\noutstanding dues of the petitioner might<br \/>\nseriously prejudice the cane growers. The High<br \/>\nCourt must have considered at the same time<br \/>\nthat to allow the certificate proceedings to<br \/>\nbe completed would have rendered the writ<br \/>\napplication made by the petitioner completely<br \/>\nin fructuous. They, therefore, passed a<br \/>\nworking order protecting the interests of the<br \/>\ncane-growers and at the same time keeping open<br \/>\nissues which can be brought out at the time of<br \/>\nadjudication. It was suggested to us on<br \/>\nbehalf of the Cane-growers Society that the<br \/>\nproper order for the High Court in such<br \/>\ncircumstances would have been to maintain the<br \/>\nstatus quo and to keep the attachments<br \/>\nundisturbed until the disposal of the writ<br \/>\npetitions and at the same time to insist on<br \/>\nthe petitioner depositing the entire amount in<br \/>\ncourt, so that the interests of the<br \/>\ncane-growers could be protected in the event<br \/>\nof dismissal of the writ petition. While we<br \/>\nare not in a position, in the absence of a<br \/>\njudgment in this matter, to contemplate the<br \/>\nreasons which induced the High Court to pass<br \/>\nthe instant order in its present form, it is<br \/>\nimpossible for us not to appreciate the fact<br \/>\nthat even if the High Court had passed an<br \/>\norder asking the petitioner to deposit the<br \/>\nentire amount at once that would not have<br \/>\nhelped the immediate needs of the cane-growers<br \/>\nwhich according to the counsel of the Society<br \/>\nare so pressing that it is incumbent on us to<br \/>\ninterfere even with an interim order passed by<br \/>\nthe High Court. At one stage, we considered<br \/>\nthe feasibility of making an order by which<br \/>\nthe petitioner could be compelled to make a<br \/>\ndeposit in court of a sum of Rupees 8.26 lakhs<br \/>\nwhich, according to the petitioner, is the<br \/>\namount that is still outstanding if one takes<br \/>\ninto account the various payments made by the<br \/>\npetitioner after the issue of the certificates<br \/>\neither on its own or in terms of the order of<br \/>\nthe High Court. We, however, refrain from<br \/>\npassing such an order for the simple reason<br \/>\nthat such an order would make very little<br \/>\ndifference to the parties. This sum would in<br \/>\nany case be payable by the petitioner in<br \/>\ncourse of a little over two months time. Had<br \/>\nwe passed such an order we would have only<br \/>\nexpedited the realisation of the outstanding<br \/>\ndues of the cane-growers by an insignificantly<br \/>\nshort period. This we are unwilling to do.<br \/>\nThis cannot help any of the parties and there<br \/>\ncan be hardly any point in taking the<br \/>\nextraordinary step of interfering with an<br \/>\ninterim order of the High Court when such<br \/>\ninterference cannot serve the interests of any<br \/>\nparty whatsoever. In this view of the matter<br \/>\nthese appeals fail. In the particular facts<br \/>\nand circumstances of the case we make no order<br \/>\nas to costs.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> The position of an order under Order 39 is, in my<br \/>\nopinion, identical. The principal contentions raised by<br \/>\ndifferent parties in the suit regarding the subject<br \/>\nmatter for which the interim order is made are yet to be<br \/>\ndecided. The findings recorded by the learned trial<br \/>\nCourt or the appellate Court under Order 43 Rule 1 are<br \/>\nprima facie findings dealing with the continuation or<br \/>\ndiscontinuation of a temporary injunction granted or not<br \/>\ngranted. There can, therefore, be no doubt that the<br \/>\norder under Order 39 C.P.C. is a temporary order.\n<\/p>\n<p> 12. The decision in Terene Traders .vs.<br \/>\nRameshchandra Jamnadas &amp; Co. and another reported in AIR<br \/>\n1987 S.C. 1492, in my opinion, clinches the issue that<br \/>\nthe orders passed under Order 39 are temporary or<br \/>\ninterlocutory in nature.\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;2. In this case a learned Judge of the<br \/>\nBombay High Court by his order dated July 1,<br \/>\n1986 has in revision set aside the order of<br \/>\nthe Bombay City Civil Court dated September 5,<br \/>\n1983 and allowed the plaintiffs application<br \/>\nfor grant of temporary injunction under Order<br \/>\nXXXIX R. 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,<br \/>\n1908.\n<\/p>\n<p> 3. Normally, this Court does not, as a<br \/>\nrule, interfere with an interlocutory order of<br \/>\nthis nature except under very exceptional<br \/>\ncircumstances&#8230;..&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> It will be seen that the very nature of the orders<br \/>\nindicates that they are temporary and the Supreme Court<br \/>\nhas in most unequivocal terms observed that to be so.\n<\/p>\n<p> 13. The latest judgment of the Supreme Court in<br \/>\nLaxmikant V. Patel .vs. Chetanbhat Shah and another<br \/>\n, in my opinion, decisively<br \/>\nholds that the orders under Order 39 are temporary or<br \/>\ninterlocutory in nature. The Supreme Court has held as<br \/>\nunder :-\n<\/p>\n<p>  &#8220;The Supreme Court would not ordinarily<br \/>\ninterfere with the exercise of discretion in<br \/>\nthe matter of grant of temporary injunction by<br \/>\nthe High Court and the Trial Court and<br \/>\nsubstitute its own discretion therefore except<br \/>\nwhere the discretion has been shown to have<br \/>\nbeen exercised arbitrarily or capriciously or<br \/>\nperversely or where the order of the Court<br \/>\nunder scrutiny ignores the settled principles<br \/>\nof law regulating grant or refusal of<br \/>\ninterlocutory injunction. An appeal against<br \/>\nexercise of discretion is said to be an appeal<br \/>\non principle. Appellate Court will not<br \/>\nreassess the material and seek to reach a<br \/>\nconclusion different from the one reached by<br \/>\nthe Court below solely on the ground that if<br \/>\nit had considered the matter at the trial<br \/>\nstage it would have come to a contrary<br \/>\nconclusion.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p> It is thus clear that the order passed under Order 39 is<br \/>\ntemporary or interlocutory in nature. According to Shri<br \/>\nM.G. Bhangde, learned Counsel appearing for applicants,<br \/>\neven if the order under Order 39 Rules 1 &amp; 2 of the Civil<br \/>\nProcedure Code is interlocutory, after an appeal is filed<br \/>\nunder Order 43 C.P.C. the appellate order is no longer<br \/>\nan order either in the suit or proceedings and,<br \/>\ntherefore, is open for revision. According to him, as<br \/>\nnoted above, the proviso bars a revision application only<br \/>\nin the four contingencies where the order is made in the<br \/>\ncourse of a suit or proceedings and where order is made<br \/>\nin the course of suit or proceeding deciding any issue in<br \/>\ncourse of that suit or proceeding. The order passed by<br \/>\nthe appellate authority under Order 43 Rule 1 read with<br \/>\nSection 104 of C.P. Code is not such an order. It finally<br \/>\ndecides the proceedings of Miscellaneous Appeal under<br \/>\nSection 104 and, therefore, the revision is maintainable.<br \/>\nI am unable to accept this contention for the reason that<br \/>\nan appeal against an order granting or refusing<br \/>\ninjunction is maintainable under Order 43 Rule 1 and that<br \/>\nappeal is a continuation of the proceedings. An order<br \/>\ngranting injunction if maintained in appeal merges into<br \/>\nthe appellate order and if reversed ceases to exist and<br \/>\nan order dismissing an application for grant of temporary<br \/>\ninjunction comes into existence. Even that order<br \/>\ncontinues to be temporary. In either case it is an order<br \/>\nin continuation of the proceedings which are pending and,<br \/>\ntherefore, it cannot be said that it is an order in a<br \/>\nproceeding which is neither a suit nor a proceeding as<br \/>\ncontemplated by Order 39 and, therefore, is a final order<br \/>\nis not acceptable. Even if it is presumed that the order<br \/>\npassed by the appellate Court under Order 43 decides the<br \/>\nappeal finally and the proceedings by way of Misc.<br \/>\nAppeal come to an end, the lis pending in the Civil Suit<br \/>\ndoes not stand decided by reason of that order. What is<br \/>\ncontemplated by Section 115 as amended in 2002 is that<br \/>\nthe order should be such if made in favour of the<br \/>\nrevision applicant would have finally disposed of the<br \/>\nsuit or other proceedings. The Civil Suit in which<br \/>\ntemporary injunction is granted or not granted is not<br \/>\ndecided finally either by grant or refusal thereof and<br \/>\ncontinues to pend. Taking into consideration this aspect<br \/>\nof the matter, therefore, it cannot be said that merely<br \/>\nbecause the revision application is directed against an<br \/>\norder passed by appellate Court finally deciding the<br \/>\nMisc. Appeal under Order 39 Rule 1 read with Order 43<br \/>\nRule 1 C.P.C., the revision is maintainable. What is now<br \/>\nnecessary after July, 2002 for maintaining a revision is<br \/>\nthat the order impugned in revision must have the effect<br \/>\nof finally disposing of the suit or proceedings in favour<br \/>\nof the person who applies for revision. By very nature<br \/>\nof things and the nature of Order 39 itself, such a<br \/>\ncontingency cannot occur and consequently, a revision<br \/>\napplication whether against an appellate order or<br \/>\noriginal order granting or refusing injunction is not<br \/>\nmaintainable after 1-7-2002.\n<\/p>\n<p> 14. In my opinion, such revision application is not<br \/>\nmaintainable after 1-7-2002 as the legislative intent to<br \/>\nprohibit such interference in revision is made abundantly<br \/>\nclear by the Amendment Act and the provisions of the<br \/>\nSection. It will be seen that by the 1999 Amendment the<br \/>\nproviso to Section 115(1) was substituted. Clause (b) of<br \/>\nthe proviso was deleted. Section 115(2) was maintained<br \/>\nand clause (3) was added to Section 115. As long as the<br \/>\nclause (b) of proviso existed on the statute book, it was<br \/>\npossible for the High Court to interfere in its<br \/>\nrevisional jurisdiction even if the order is of interim<br \/>\nor interlocutory nature provided if such order is allowed<br \/>\nto stand, it would result in failure of justice or<br \/>\nirreparable loss. Conscious deletion of this provision<br \/>\nby the Legislature is, therefore, a positive indication<br \/>\nof the intent of the Legislature that even if the<br \/>\ninterlocutory order if allowed to stand caused failure of<br \/>\njustice or irreparable loss, it should not be interfered<br \/>\nwith because it is of interim nature and parties can<br \/>\nalways be relegated to their rights by the appropriate<br \/>\nfinal adjudication of the lis between the parties which<br \/>\nwill be decided only when the suit from which this arises<br \/>\nis decided. That being the clear intent of the<br \/>\nLegislature to severely restrict the scope of revisional<br \/>\npowers of the High Court, to interpret the proviso in a<br \/>\nmanner which will require reading into that proviso the<br \/>\ncontents of clause (b) which was definitely and<br \/>\npositively eliminated by the Legislature by restructuring<br \/>\nthe proviso, is impermissible in law. It will have,<br \/>\ntherefore, to be held that the revision application<br \/>\nagainst orders under Order 39 Rule 1 whether passed by<br \/>\nthe trial Court or in appeal by the appellate Authority<br \/>\nunder Order 43 Rule 1 are not liable to be revised under<br \/>\nSection 115 of the Civil Procedure Code after 1-7-2002.\n<\/p>\n<p> 15. In the result, therefore, all these revision<br \/>\napplications fail and are dismissed. There will be no<br \/>\norder as to the costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bombay High Court Nagorao Alias Arun S\/O Narayan &#8230; vs Narayan S\/O Nagan Yerawar And Sou. &#8230; on 29 August, 2002 Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 Bom 178, 2003 (2) BomCR 148, 2002 (4) MhLj 615 Author: V Palshikar Bench: V Palshikar JUDGMENT V.G. Palshikar, J. 1. This revision application is directed against the order passed [&hellip;]<\/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-77894","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Nagorao Alias Arun S\/O Narayan ... vs Narayan S\/O Nagan Yerawar And Sou. ... on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Nagorao Alias Arun S\/O Narayan ... vs Narayan S\/O Nagan Yerawar And Sou. ... on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-11T16:36:46+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=\"25 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Nagorao Alias Arun S\\\/O Narayan &#8230; vs Narayan S\\\/O Nagan Yerawar And Sou. &#8230; on 29 August, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-11T16:36:46+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002\"},\"wordCount\":5014,\"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\\\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002\",\"name\":\"Nagorao Alias Arun S\\\/O Narayan ... vs Narayan S\\\/O Nagan Yerawar And Sou. ... on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-11T16:36:46+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Nagorao Alias Arun S\\\/O Narayan &#8230; vs Narayan S\\\/O Nagan Yerawar And Sou. &#8230; on 29 August, 2002\"}]},{\"@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":"Nagorao Alias Arun S\/O Narayan ... vs Narayan S\/O Nagan Yerawar And Sou. ... on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Nagorao Alias Arun S\/O Narayan ... vs Narayan S\/O Nagan Yerawar And Sou. ... on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-11T16:36:46+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":"25 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Nagorao Alias Arun S\/O Narayan &#8230; vs Narayan S\/O Nagan Yerawar And Sou. &#8230; on 29 August, 2002","datePublished":"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-11T16:36:46+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002"},"wordCount":5014,"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\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002","name":"Nagorao Alias Arun S\/O Narayan ... vs Narayan S\/O Nagan Yerawar And Sou. ... on 29 August, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-08-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-11T16:36:46+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/nagorao-alias-arun-so-narayan-vs-narayan-so-nagan-yerawar-and-sou-on-29-august-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Nagorao Alias Arun S\/O Narayan &#8230; vs Narayan S\/O Nagan Yerawar And Sou. &#8230; on 29 August, 2002"}]},{"@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\/77894","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=77894"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/77894\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=77894"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=77894"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=77894"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}