Bombay High Court

NAMDEO RAMCHANDRA KADUPATILversusBABASAHEB MOHAN YEOLE AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable because an appeal is the appropriate remedy, and therefore it is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Namdeo Ramchandra Kadupatil, challenged the judgment and order in Regular Civil Suit No.149 of 2009 by filing a writ petition. The court observed that an appeal is the appropriate remedy for such a challenge and that a writ petition is not the correct forum. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with liberty granted to the petitioner to pursue the appropriate appeal before the competent court. The court also directed that the issue of delay be considered by the concerned court and ordered payment of fees to the petitioner’s counsel under the High Court Legal Services Rules. The writ petition was therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition is maintainable to challenge a judgment in a civil suit when an appeal is available as an alternative remedy
Whether the court should entertain the petition despite alleged delay

Subjects

writ petition
civil suit
appeal
jurisdiction
delay
legal aid

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39726



                                                                   41 WP1726.2012
                                              -1-

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                               BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                             41 WRIT PETITION NO. 1726 OF 2012

                           NAMDEO RAMCHANDRA KADUPATIL
                                         VERSUS
                          BABASAHEB MOHAN YEOLE AND ORS
                                            ...
              Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Madhukar G. Kolse Patil
              (Appointed through Legal Aid)
                                            ...


                                          CORAM : SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.
                                             Date : 01.09.2026


              PER COURT :-

              1.         In view of the fact that the challenge is raised to the

              Judgment and Order in Regular Civil Suit No.149 of 2009 and an

              alternate remedy is available in law i.e. the same is to be

              challenged in an Appeal, the present Writ Petition is disposed of

              with liberty to the Petitioner to take out the appropriate

              proceedings before the appropriate court.


              2.         The concerned court shall consider the issue of delay

              keeping in view of the fact that the Petitioner was prosecuting the

              present Petition before this court.
                                                    41 WP1726.2012
                               -2-

3.         Mr. Madhukar G. Kolse Patil, learned counsel for the

Petitioner shall be paid fees as per Rules by the High Court Legal

Services Sub-Committee, Aurangabad Bench.


4.         With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition

stands disposed of.



                                     (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.)

marathe

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…