1 / 4 14-cas 670-26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (CAS) NO. 670 OF 2026 IN SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 6682 OF 2025 Fatmabi Mohd. Basir Sikalgir (dead) through Lrs. Vs. Salimbi Mohd. Ashir Sikalgir (dead) through Lrs. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.P.M.Jain, counsel for the applicants/appellants. CORAM : MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J. DATE : 01/09/2026 1. Heard. 2. The applicants have filed this application seeking condonation of delay. There is a delay of 122 days in filing the appeal. Notice was issued to the respondents. Though the respondents have been duly served and an Advocate has been engaged on their behalf, none appeared for the respondents. 3. Considering the reasons given in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 122 days is hereby condoned, subject to the payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited in the 'Public Welfare Account' bearing No.129712010001014, IFSC Code UBIN0812978 Kavita 2 / 4 14-cas 670-26 with Union Bank of India, Branch High Court, Civil Lines, Nagpur, within a period of two weeks from today. 4. Registry is directed to register the appeal. 5. Civil application stands disposed of. SECOND APPEAL ST. NO. 6682 OF 2025 1. The appellants herein are the original plaintiffs, who had filed the suit for partition. The suit was filed seeking partition of the courtyard between the brothers of the joint family in respect of the joint family property. 2. During the pendency of the suit, the parties arrived at a compromise, pursuant to which a compromise decree came to be passed. In the execution proceedings, a Commissioner was appointed for effecting the partition. However, according to the appellants, the Commissioner wrongly partitioned certain property which was not included in the properties covered by the compromise decree. 3. The appellants raised an objection to the Commissioner's report before the Executing Court. However, the said objection was not considered. Therefore, the appellants preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court also confirmed the report of the Commissioner. Being aggrieved Kavita 3 / 4 14-cas 670-26 by the said order, the appellants have preferred the present appeal on the following proposed substantial question of law. i. Whether the Courts below erred not to strictly adhere to the terms of compromise decree to be satisfied in terms of compromise recorded on 05/07/1997 between the parties? ii. Whether the area of C.T.S. No.496 admeasuring 191.5 sq. meter as held is to be partitioned in equal portion i.e. apportioning and to have separate possession of the same can be altered at the time of execution of said compromise decree against the terms of compromise wherein half share of the suit plot i.e. final C.T.S. No.496 admeasuring 191.5 sq. meter which comes to the area 95.75 sq. meter including the area of new construction was to be given to plaintiff/appellant by way of measurement from north and south direction and remaining portion of the suit plot to the defendant ? iii. Whether the learned Trial Court so also the Appellate Court failed to consider the demarcations submitted by plaintiff/decree holder through private Architect and the accuracy of the said report which was duly proved by the plaintiff and erred to pass the impugned order that the decree is satisfied in wake of measurement carried out by City Survey Officer on 23/01/2007 and come to conclusion that the map dated 21/01/2007 demarcating the suit property by share by words 'AB' and northern side of survey no.496/1 and southern side survey no.496/2 admeasuring 95.75 sq. meter is divided Kavita 4 / 4 14-cas 670-26 finally when the side lane of said survey no.494 was wrongly included and side lane of survey no.495 was not included though part of survey no.496 and the partitions are demarcated by wrongly including the areas of said survey numbers against the recorded area? 4. Issue notice to the respondents on the above mentioned substantial questions of law, returnable on 29/09/2026. 5. As the appellants have already challenged the Commissioner’s report before the Executing Court. Considering the possibility of alienation of the property, during the pendency of the appeal, the parties are restrained from creating any third-party interest in respect of the suit property till the next date. JUDGE Kavita Signed by: Kavita P Tayade Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 07/09/2026 11:44:57