Bombay High Court
WP/508/2003 of PURSHOTTAM R. NAIK AND ANR., Vs VITHAL ALIAS BHIKARO R. NAIK AND 9 ORS., on 11 December 2003
COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 508 OF 2003 PURSHOTTAM R. NAIK AND ANR., ....Petitioners Versus VITHAL ALIAS BHIKARO R. NAIK AND 9 ....Respondents ORS., MRS.A.A.AGNI,SHRI R.G. RAMANI Coram:- V. G. PALSHIKAR, J. Date:- 11th December, 2003 P.C.: Heard. I find no reason to exercise writ
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
WRIT PETITION NO. 508 OF 2003
PURSHOTTAM R. NAIK AND ANR.,
Versus
....Petitioners
VITHAL ALIAS BHIKARO R. NAIK AND 9 ORS.,
....Respondents
MRS.A.A.AGNI,SHRI R.G. RAMANI
-Coram:V. G. PALSHIKAR, J.-Date:11th December, 2003
P.C.:Heard.I find no reason to exercise writjurisdiction against the impugned order.Mrs. Agni contends that the Court below,having answered the main contention infavour of the petitioners, ought to haverejected the suit as not maintainableand answered the issue in theaffirmative. I find no substance in thissubmission.On the other hand, the court belowwas right in observing that even if therespondents were not entitled for therelief of partitioning the suit propertythat does not mean that the entire suitcan be dismissed as not maintainable,because the suit was also for relief ofpermanent injunction. According toMrs. Agni if the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief of partition, the question of granting permanentinjunction in favour of such plaintiffsdoes not arise and for which reason thesuit ought to be dismissed. Thatargument will be available at the finalstage of the trial and the suit cannotbe dismissed at this stage - because itis not possible to take the view thatthe suit is barred by law as such.
Hence dismissed. The Trial Court todecided the suit on its own merit and inaccordance with law.
V. G. PALSHIKAR, J.