A single-judge order declining to grant interim orders in a civil application filed by an appellant against respondents related to a specific performance suit. The court limited potential property disputes to Respondent No.1's share.
Civil Application disposed of; interim prayer clauses not granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
ssm
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2152 OF 2007
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO.87 OF2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda
of Coram, appearances, Court’s
Orders or directions and
Registrar’s OrdersCourt’s or Judge’s Orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Mr. Yashodhan Sakhare i/by.
M/s. DSK Legal for the
applicant.
Mr. Ajay A. Joshi for
respondent Nos. 1,2 and 4.
CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.
DATED : 16th October, 2007.
P.C.
1. The appellant-plaintiffs’
suit for Specific Performance was
dismissed, therefore, filed the
First Appeal. The suit was filed
after expiry of 3 years for
specific performance only in
reference to respondent No.1.
The property involved, therefore,
at present stage of the
proceedings cannot be subject to
any interim order even it comes
under prayer clause (b). The
( 2 )
rights, whatever even if any, is
now subject to the decision of
the first appeal and that is too
only in respect of respondent
No.1. The property in fact owned
by all the members, as a tenant
common.
2. In view of this, I am not
inclined to grant prayer clauses
as claimed now in this
application though it was
initially granted, but
subsequently vacated on
23/02/2007.
2. However, it is made clear
that, whatever transfer if made
by respondent No.1 will be
subject to the decision of the
first appeal, is restricted in so
far as respondent number one’s
share is concerned.
3. The Civil Application is,
( 3 )
disposed of, accordingly.
[ANOOPV. MOHTA, J.]
3 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant interim orders regarding transfer of property pending the outcome of the first appeal in a specific performance suit.
Whether the appellant's rights over the property are restricted to the share of Respondent No.1.
How to dispose of Civil Application No. 2152 of 2007 arising from the dismissal of the specific performance suit.
Appellant
Respondent No.1
Respondent No.2
Respondent No.4
Anoop V. Mohta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court