The High Court disposed of an appeal seeking recovery of materials lying with the defendant. Noting the construction was completed, the court upheld the lower court's order dismissing interim relief, leaving the substantive case for trial.
The appeal is disposed of with liberty to the plaintiff to prove his case before the single Judge.
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.
rpa
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 735 OF 2007
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2110 OF 2007
IN
SUIT NO. 510 OF 2007
Anil Dupte
.. Appellant.
Vs.
Amogh Sawant.. Respondent.
Mr.P.M. Havnur for Appellant.
Mr. Swanand G. i/b.M.G.Gawbe for Respondent.
CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & J.P.DEVADHAR,J.
DATED : 16th JANUARY, 2008
P.C.
.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
2.The Plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of
money alongwith interest and had prayed for other
reliefs including that during the pendency of the suit
the Defendants be restrained from using the material
of the Plaintiff lying in the premises of the
Defendants for completing the balance construction
work. Alongwith this reliefs in the plaint interim
reliefs were also prayed for. The suit was contested
by the defendants.
( 2 )
.The Plaintiff took out Notice of Motion
No.2110 of 2007 and prayed for interim relief which
was rejected by the learned single Judge by his order
dated 4th September, 2007 which is the order impugned
in the present Appeal. In the said impugned order the
learned Judge observed that the interim order prayed
for by the Plaintiff was in the nature of the final
relief claimed in the suit and the Plaintiff can claim
damages and therefore it was not possible to settle
all the dispute at the stage of Notice of Motion and
consequently dismissed the Motion.
3.The relief claimed by the Plaintiff in the
suit are one for recovery of money and for prohibitory
orders. It is not in dispute before us that after
filing of the suit on 16th May 2007, the construction
of the building has been completed and any
interference at this stage would not be of any
consequence. In the circumstances, we see no need to
interfere with the order of learned single Judge dated
4th September, 2007, however, it is made clear that
the said order shall not prejudice the rights and
contentions of the parties. The Appellant would be at
liberty to prove his case during the trial. The value
( 3 )
of the material which is claimed to be lying in the
premises and as well as the extent of damages would
depend upon the construction carried out. This Appeal
is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the
plaintiff to prove his case before the single Judge.
4.Parties are left to bear their own costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
J.P.DEVADHAR, J.
Anil Dupte
Amogh Sawant
Swatanter Kumar
J.P. Devadhar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court