Single judge dismissed civil application challenging an interim injunction order. The court held that subsequent consent decree reducing plaintiffs' share to 1/18th and the sale of property negated the necessity of continuing the injunction.
Application for continuation of interim injunction dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 61 OF 2010
| 1. |
Smt. Arundhati Vithoba Naik Panvelcar, wife of Dr.Vithoba |
|---|---|
| Vishnu Naik Panvelcar married of full age, housewife, residing at 'Panorama' Apartments Altinho, Panaji-Goa. |
|
| 2. |
Dr. Vithoba Vishnu Naik Panvelcar, son of late Vishnu Naik Panvelcar, married, of full age, Medical Practitioner, residing at |
| 'Panorama' Apartments, Altinho, | |
| Panaji, Goa. ... Applicants |
versus
2
3
4
5
6
Shri D. D. Zaveri, Advocate for the Applicants.
Shri M. S. Joshi, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J.
DATE : 22ND DECEMBER, 2010.
ORDER
Heard learned Counsel on behalf of the parties.
7
possession of the said property when the other co-owners of the same
have already sold it to defendant Nos.1 to 3. There is no dispute that the plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 were handed over shops admeasuring 73.47 sq. meters in Ana Rita Apartments at Taleigao. The plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 have been awarded compensation of Rs.17,600/- with interest thereon at the rate of 10% against the claim of plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 against defendant Nos.1 to 3 that they had not replaced the shutters, repainted the internal walls, etc. The flat in survey No.121/6 of Taleigao Village could not be handed over to plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 and for that, the learned trial Court has assigned three good reasons which are required to be endorsed, at least at this stage. These are recorded in para 15 of the judgment. Whether the plaintiffs would be entitled to an enhanced compensation for not handing over the flat in survey No.121/6 at prevailing rates of flats is entirely a different matter for which injunction as sought for need not be granted. It has been stated on behalf of defendant Nos.1 and 3 that the plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 had admitted that they are ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement i.e. the addendum agreement dated 4-5-1976 and they are willing to pay the compensation ordered by the learned trial Court.
8
plaintiff Nos.3 and 4 had essentially remained as a suit for compensation and whether the said plaintiffs are entitled to anything more than awarded by the Decree is a matter which can be considered at the time of hearing of the appeal without putting any fetters in the sale of the property of which the defendant Nos.1 to 3 have also become co-owners, the rights of the plaintiffs having been reduced to the extent of 1/18th share only. If at all an injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs by the learned trial Court by Order dated 24-11-2008 it does not mean that the same should be continued at present. The said Order dated 24-11-2008 also does not take into consideration the said consent decree.
dismissed.
N. A. BRITTO, J.
RD
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order granting interim injunction to the applicants remain applicable after the consent decree reducing their share.
Whether the high court should fetter the sale of the suit property given the change in the plaintiffs' share.
Smt. Arundhati Vithoba Naik
Dr. Vithoba Vishnu Naik Panvelcar
M/s ESAR Builders A partnership firm
Shri Sadiq Shaikh
Shri Rajendra M. Narkar
Smt. Amintha Vijaykumar Hede
N. A. BRITTO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
