34_SA138_16.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.138 OF 2016 Ramdas Dhondi Bolij and others … Appellants Vs. Sushilabai Laxman Kadam and others … Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.216 OF 2016 IN SECOND APPEAL NO.138 OF 2016 --- Mr. Gaurav Ugale i/b. Mr. Shriram Kulkarni for Appellants. Ms. Neha R. Parte i/b. Mr. Suresh M. Sabrad for Respondents. CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J. DATE : NOVEMBER 13, 2025 P.C. : . Ms. Parte, learned counsel for the respondents invites attention of this Court to the order dated 10.04.2019 passed in the present appeal, which reads as follows:- “1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant had filed a Regular Civil Suit No.166 of 1996 for possession of the alleged encroached portion of the suit land to the extent of 68 Ares from the defendant nos.1 to 4, with consequential relief of permanent injunction. 3. The plaintiffs and the defendant nos.1 to 4 are the owners of distinct and demarcated portion of Gat No.4/2. It is the plaintiff’s case that, defendants gradually started encroaching upon the plaintiff’s distinct portion of the land. The plaintiffs therefore measured their lands and suggested defendants to fix the boundary marks but the defendants neglected their suggestion. It is in these circumstances, the suit was filed. The trial Court dismissed the suit; however, the Appellate Court reversed the decree of the trial Court and by judgement and order dated 13th August, 2015 directed defendants no.1 to 4 to handover possession of the encroached portion to the extend of 67 Ares to the plaintiffs-appellants. 1/3 MINAL SANDIP PARAB Digitally signed by MINAL SANDIP PARAB Date: 2025.11.13 17:37:16 +0530 34_SA138_16.doc 4. Aggrieved by the decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the defendants have preferred this Appeal. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant, has placed on record an application/purshis dated 27th March, 2019 filed by the plaintiffs and defendants no.1 to 4 in Regular Darkhast No.5 of 2019. In Clause-6 of the said application, the defendants have recorded their consent for executing the decree in terms of Clause No.IV of the order passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.56 of 2007. 6. In view of the averments made in the application, prima facie, the Appeal does not survive. However, the learned Counsel for the appellant, submits that the next date before the executing Court is 16th April, 2019 and therefore requests for adjournment. 7. Stand over to 23rd April, 2019 on the supplementary board.” 2. Mr. Ugale, learned counsel for the appellants submits that letters have been sent to the appellants, informing them that the counsel would be seeking discharge due to lack of instructions and in that light, he submits that this Court may consider adjourning the hearing of the appeal. 3. At this stage, Ms. Parte, learned counsel for the respondents (original plaintiffs) submits that possession of the suit land has been handed over in terms of clause (iv) of the operative portion of the judgement and order dated 13.08.2015 passed by the District Court. The said clause directed the appellants i.e. the original defendants to handover possession of land to the extent of 67 R to the respondents. A responsible statement, on instructions, is made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents (original plaintiffs), which demonstrates that nothing survives in this appeal and that, it can be disposed of. 4. In view of the above, by recording the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the respondents, the second appeal is disposed of. Pending 2/3 34_SA138_16.doc applications, if any, also stand disposed of. 5. Since the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that he has not received instructions, liberty is reserved for the appellants to apply for recall of this order, if so advised. (MANISH PITALE, J.) 3/3 Minal Parab