Appeal against an injunction order preventing disposal of property to a subsequent purchaser was dismissed; the impugned order was held correct as litigation by vendor and purchaser was pending.
The injunction order was upheld; appeal dismissed; civil application disposed of.
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) (930) AO 73/11
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Amk
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 73 OF 2011
Deepak Kirtilal Mepani
.. Appellant
Vs.
Milind Gopalrao Gujarati & Ors... Respondents
Mr. R. D. Soni h/f Ram & Co. for the Appellant.
Mr. Sachin Gite i/b Mr. M. S. Karnik for Respondent
No.1.
Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.
CORAM: MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
Date: 17th August, 2011.
P.C.
1.The order of injunction against creation of
third party rights has been passed in the impugned
order. The Appellant is a subsequent purchaser after
the Suit was filed by the previous purchaser against
the vendor. The vendor has also sued both the
purchasers in a separate Suit. Pending these
litigations, the property cannot be disposed of.
Hence the impugned order is correct and does not
deserve to be interfered with.
2.The Appeal is dismissed. The Civil
Application is also disposed of accordingly.
(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)
Deepak Kirtilal Mepani
Milind Gopalrao Gujarati
Roshan Dalvi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court