Disposed

Wonder Valie Realty Developers Pvt.Ltd. v. Sunil Bagoji Kalsukar and 5 Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jul 2012APP/219/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of an appeal challenging an interim order. The Court held that the trial judge’s observation about providing future access was merely clarificatory and did not constitute a restrictive ad-interim order.

What did the court decide?

Dismissed the appeal and clarified that the impugned order was not an ad-interim order against the appellants.

Wonder Valie Realty Developers Pvt.Ltd. Vs Sunil Bagoji… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2012)

app-219-12

gopi

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL NO.219 OF 2012

¶6

¶7

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3776 OF 2011

¶8

¶9

SUIT NO.2484 OF 2011

¶10

Wonder Value Realty Developers Private Ltd. & Ors. ..Appellants

¶11

Versus Sunil Bhagoji Kalsukar & Ors. ....Respondents.

¶12

Mr. Parimal Shroff with Mr. D.V. Deokar, Mr. Medhavin Bhatt, and Mr. Pinakin Modi, for appellants.

¶13

Mr. Chirag Balsara i/b. A.A. Rao, for respondent No.1. Ms. Kavita Kutty, for respondent (Ori. Plaintiff) Mr. Shailesh Shah with Ms. Sonia Putta i/b. Solomen & Co., for respondent .

¶14

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 16 July 2012.

¶16

P.C.

¶17

This appeal is directed against the order dated 23 February 2012. Paragraph 2 and 3 of the order reads as under:-

¶18

“2. It is not necessary at this stage to consider whether the access claimed by the plaintiff is the only motorable access or not and whether the residents of the property including the plaintiff have been using the same. I see no reason to restrain respondent no.3 or the other defendants from putting up construction on their properties delineated in brown at this stage provided, of course, the rights of the plaintiff are safeguarded.

1/3

gopi

app-219-12

3. The following ad-interim order is passed:

¶24

In the event of the plaintiff succeeding in the notice of motion, the defendants shall provide the plaintiff and the residents of the plot delineated in green access as claimed with such modification as may be necessary and directed by the Court from the Dr. Annie Besant Road. The defendants shall not be entitled to claim any equity inn respect of any construction that they may put up hereafter if it is held that such access ought to be granted”.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant-defendant No.1 supported by the learned counsel for the defendant No.2 society submit that even after holding that there was no reason to restrain defendant No.3 or other defendants from putting up any construction on the properties in question, the learned trial Judge erred in passing further order instead of simply stating that the ad-interim relief was refused. The learned counsel for the appellant apprehends that in view of this observation the Municipal Corporation will not sanction the building plans without an access and thus this observation will operate as an ad-interim order against the appellant.

¶26

Learned counsel for the original plaintiff submits that the plaintiff proposes to press for further orders at the hearing of the notice of motion which is still pending.

¶27

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that for all practicable purposes the learned Judge has declined to grant any ad-interim relief in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. What is observed in para 3 of the order is merely clarification to the effect that in the event of the plaintiff succeeding in the notice of motion

2/3

app-219-12

gopi

the defendants shall provide the plaintiff and the residents of the plot in question access with such modification as may be necessary and directed by the Court from the Dr. Annie Besant Road. This cannot be said to be an ad-interim order.

¶33

In view of the above, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai will consider the building plans submitted by the defendants in accordance with law without being influenced by any observation made in para 3 of the impugned order dated 23 February 2012, which, as already clarified above, does not amount to any ad-interim order.

¶34

It will be open to the plaintiff to move the learned trial Judge for early hearing of the notice of motion.

¶35

Liberty to apply in case of difficulty.

¶36

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶37

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶38

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶39

3/3

Wonder Valie Realty Developers Pvt.Ltd. v. Sunil Bagoji Kalsukar and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Wonder Valie Realty Developers Pvt.Ltd. v. Sunil Bagoji Kalsukar and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khandu Baban Ghadge and 40 Anr. Vs M/S Revathi Construction

Pansn Construction and Developers Private Limited Vs Girish Vrajlal Sheth

Shri Avinash Vishwasrao Patil and Ors. Vs Navjeevan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadet and Ors.

Peter Edward Gomes (Since Deceased) John Edward Gomes Vs Mark Edward Gomes

Rajesh Laxmichand Udeshi @ Bhatia, Vs Pravin Hiralal Shah

Prakash Ganpat Sawant Vs Ravindra B. Satam and 2 Ors.