Bombay High Court

VITTHAL GANGARAM KABADEversusCHARUSHILA APASAHEB NAROLE AND ORS.

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court, disinclined to entertain the revision petition, allowed the parties to settle on consent terms and scheduled the matter for filing of affidavit undertakings.

Summary

The applicant, Vitthal Gangaram Kabade, filed a civil revision seeking relief against the respondents. The High Court expressed its disinclination to entertain the petition and instead entertained a consensual arrangement whereby the applicant would vacate the suit premises within ten months and pay Rs. 2,500 per month from 1 October 2024 until vacating. The applicant agreed to file affidavit undertakings by all occupants to vacate on the date fixed by the court and to withdraw any further applications obstructing execution. The respondents found the applicant's proposals acceptable. The court ordered the matter to be listed on 17 September 2026 for filing of the consent terms and affidavit undertakings.

Issues considered

Whether the revision petition should be entertained by the court
Whether the applicant should be granted time to vacate the premises and the terms of such vacating

Subjects

civil revision
execution of decree
vacating premises
consent terms
affidavit undertaking
court disposition

Judgment

                                                                            904 - CRA - 48 - 2026.docx


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
VAIBHAV
RAMESH                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JADHAV
Digitally signed by
VAIBHAV RAMESH
JADHAV
Date: 2026.09.04
20:55:53 +0530
                                   CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2026

                      Vitthal Gangaram Kabade                         … Applicant
                                  V/s.
                      Charushila Apasaheb Narole & Ors.               … Respondents

                      I. M. Khairdi for the Applicant.
                      Mr. Sujeet Bugade (through V.C.) for Respondent No.2.



                                                    CORAM       : ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.

                                                    DATED       : SEPTEMBER 4, 2026
                      P.C.:


                      1.      Heard Mr. I. M. Khairdi, learned Advocate for the Applicant, and

                      Mr. Sujeet Bugade, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2.


                      2.      After having heard the matter for some time, and this Court

                      having expressed its disinclination to entertain the present Petition, the

                      learned Advocate for the Applicant, on instructions from the Applicant,

                      submits that the Applicant may be granted reasonable time to vacate

                      the premises, which is 10 months from today.


                      3.      Mr. I. M. Khairdi, learned Advocate for the Applicant, submits

                      that the Applicant and all the persons residing with the Applicant in the

                      suit premises shall file affidavit undertakings containing the usual




                      VRJ                                                                           1
                                                      904 - CRA - 48 - 2026.docx


undertakings that each and every such person shall vacate the suit

premises on the date fixed by this Court. He further states that the

Applicant, who comes from a lower strata, is agreeable to pay an

amount of Rs. 2,500/- from the date of the decree passed in RCS No.

322 of 2019, that is, with effect from 1st October 2024, till the

Applicant vacates the suit premises. Mr. I. M. Khairdi, learned Advocate

for the Applicant, further submits that any Applications filed by the

Applicant seeking to obstruct the execution of the decree shall be

withdrawn by the Applicant. Mr. I. M. Khairdi, learned Advocate for the

Applicant, submits that all these statements have been made on the

basis of instructions from the Applicant communicated to him through

his son, Prakash Vitthal Kabade, who is present in Court.


4.    Based on the statements made by Mr. I. M. Khairdi, learned

Advocate for the Applicant, Mr. Sujeet Bugade, learned Advocate for

Respondent No. 2, sought a pass-over. Mr. Sujeet Bugade, learned

Advocate for Respondent No. 2, submits that the suggestions made by

Mr. I. M. Khairdi, learned Advocate for the Applicant, are agreeable to

the Respondents.


5.    In view of the above, Mr. I. M. Khairdi, learned Advocate for the

Applicant, and Mr. Sujeet Bugade, learned Advocate for Respondent No.

2, jointly request that this matter be listed on 17th September 2026 for




VRJ                                                                           2
                                                  904 - CRA - 48 - 2026.docx


filing of the consent terms and the affidavit undertaking by the

Applicant and all his family members.


6.    List this matter on 17th September 2026.




                                         (ASHWIN D. BHOBE, J.)




VRJ                                                                       3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…