Bombay High Court
CAS/1483/2026 of 1) DR. VIJAY S/O MADHUSUDHAN KUTHE Vs SMT. INDUMAI WD/O MADHUSUDHAN KUTHE (DEAD) THR LRS DR. SANJAY MADHUSUDHAN KUTHE AND OTHERS(Deceased) on 12 October 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR
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.
02. cas.1483.26.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1483 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.16504 OF 2026 (Dr. Vijay s/o Madhusudhan Kuthe Vs. Smt. Indumati wd/o Dr. Madhusudhan Kuthe (dead) thr. L.R’s and ors.) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Jugalkishore Gilda, Sr. Advocate a/b Mr. A.J. Gilda, Advocate for the applicant.
CORAM:-
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI
, J.
DATED :-
OCTOBER 12, 2026
The applicant has filed this application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The delay is of 25 days.
2. Considering the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. The delay is condoned.
3. Registry is directed to register the appeal.
4. The applicant to remove the office objection(s), if any, within a period of two weeks. SECOND APPEAL (ST.) NO.16504 OF 2026
5. The appellant is the original defendant. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. The suit was decreed. The appeal was preferred by the defendant. The Appellate Court has confirmed the *Divya
02. cas.1483.26.odt order passed by the learned Trial Court. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, on the proposed substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the learned courts below erred in law in holding the suit maintainable without a prayer for possession, despite its own finding that the appellant was in occupation of substantial portions of the suit property and the respondents were not in exclusive possession?
(ii) Whether the learned courts below misapplied Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act by holding that the respondents were not required to seek possession, although the pleadings and evidence disclosed dispute regarding occupation and control of the suit property?”
6. Issue notice to the respondents, returnable after four weeks.
7. The appellant has stated that the respondents have filed the execution proceeding and on last date the Executing Court has rejected the application.
8. As the notices are issued, liberty is granted to the appellant to file an application for adjournment before the Executing Court and the Court shall consider it.
( MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI
, J. ) *Divya Signed by: Mrs. Divya Baldwa Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 13/10/2026 17:03:53