Disposed

Chandulal K. Dodia v. S.G. Harsora

Bombay HC18 Sept 2008NMS/2977/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a notice of motion in a suit for eviction where the court held the suit is not maintainable in this Court as a gratuitous licensee. The plaint was returned to the plaintiff and directed to be presented in the Small Causes Court for trial within two years.

What did the court decide?

The plaint ordered to be returned to the plaintiff for presentation in the Small Causes Court on 28th October, 2008.

Chandulal K. Dodia Vs S.G. Harsora — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2977 OF 2006

¶4

IN

¶5

 SUIT NO. 2489 OF 2004

¶6

 Chandulal Kanji Dodia ...Plaintiff
 vs.

¶7

 Satish Girdharbhai Harsora ...Defendant

¶8

 None for the Plaintiff and the defendant.

¶9

CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J.

¶10

DATED : SEPTEMBER 18, 2008

¶11

P.C. :-

¶12

 1. On the last date on 20th August, 2008, it was
 submitted by the Counsel for the plaintiff that the
 defendant no.2 had expired on 14th August, 2008 and time
 was sought for bringing the heirs of defendant no.2 on
 record. He, however, had made a statement on that day
 that he wanted to withdraw the plaint and present it
 before the appropriate court.

¶13

 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the
 defendant for eviction on the ground that the defendant
 is a gratuitous licensee. In view of the Full Bench
 Judgment of this Court in the case of Prabhudas Damodar

¶14

 - 2 -

¶15

Kotecha and another vs. Smt.Manharbala Jeram Damodar

¶16

and others, reported in 2007(5) Mh.L.J. Page 341, the

¶17

 suit is no longer maintainable in this Court. The
 plaint, therefore, be returned to the plaintiff. The
 plaintiff may submit the plaint in the Small Causes
 Court on 28th October, 2008 and thereafter, make an
 application for bringing the heirs of defendant no.2 on
 record. Interim orders, if any, passed by this Court
 shall continue for a period of six weeks.

¶18

 3. If the plaint is presented, the trial court may
 decide the suit, as expeditiously as possible and in any
 case, within the period of two years.

¶19

 4. Suit accordingly is disposed of in the aforesaid
 terms.

¶20

 5. In view of the disposal of the suit, connected

¶21

 Notice of Motion does not survive and is disposed of.

¶22

(V.M. KANADE, J.)

Chandulal K. Dodia v. S.G. Harsora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandulal K. Dodia v. S.G. Harsora

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vimal G. Karlekar @ Shalini G. Karlekar Vs Atul G. Karve and Ors. and Mr. Prasan N. Tolia

Vimal G. Karlekar @ Shalini G. Karlekar Vs Atul G. Karve and Ors. and the Asst. Gen. Manager S.B.I.

Vimal G. Karlekar @ Shalini G. Karlekar Vs Atul G. Karve and Ors. and City Survey Oicer (Ghatkopar) Mulund.

Tayebali Akberail Sohagpurwala Vs Khozema Mulla Akberali Lokhandwala and Ors.

Chandulal P. Patel and Anr. Vs Jaywant H. Thakur and 7 Ors. and M/S Balaji Associates

Bhandari Mandal and 3 Ors. Vs the Bhandari Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Anr.