Disposed

Abdul Haque Razak Ansari v. Smt. Hajra Abdul Razak Ansari

Bombay HC10 Sept 2012APP/600/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court disposed of an appeal against the dismissal of a notice of motion for appointment of a court receiver in a partition suit. The court declined to decide on merits but granted liberty to the appellant to raise contentions upon transferring the suit to the City Civil Court to consolidate it with a related suit filed by the respondents.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to appellant to raise contentions in Suit No.855 of 2011 upon its transfer to Bombay City Civil Court and hearing along with Civil Suit No.615 of 2011. Appeal disposed of.

Abdul Haque Razak Ansari Vs Smt. Hajra Abdul Razak Ansari — Partition | Bombay HC (2012)

kambli

Appl(l)-168.12

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

¶5

APPEAL (L) NO.168 OF 2012 IN

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1743 OF 2011

¶7

¶8

SUIT NO.855 OF 2011

¶9

Abdul Haque Razak Ansari ...Appellant v/s. Hajra Abdul Razak Ansari w/o abdul Razak Ansari & ors. ...Respondents

¶10

...Respondents

¶11

Mr.Ditendra Mishra for the appellant.

¶12

Mr.M.L.Palan with Mr.J.P.Thakkar for respondents Nos. 5, 6 & 9.

¶13

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 10 September 2012.

¶14

P.C.

¶15

This appeal is directed against the order dated 21 February 2012 of the learned trial Judge of this Court dismissing the notice of motion taken out by the appellant/plaintiff in a suit for partition, for appointment of court receiver of the suit property and for interim injunction to restrain respondent-defendants from creating third party rights.

¶16

The learned trial Judge has dismissed the notice of motion on the ground that the suit has been filed about 24 years after the death of the father of parties and after recording the defendant's claim that the entire property left by the deceased had been partitioned between parties.

1 Of 2

kambli

Appl(l)-168.12

Learned counsel for the appellant, however, submits that Civil Suit No.615 of 2011 has been filed in the City Civil Court by defendants Nos.5, 6 & 9 herein in respect of the property in the possession of the appellant/plaintiff and that if any finding is to be given in the said suit, which will be adverse to the appellant, the appellant must be allowed to agitate that distribution of properties ought to be reworked out.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsel for parties, we dispose of this appeal without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy between parties and with liberty to the appellant/plaintiff to raise all available contentions in Suit No.855 of 2011, which upon transfer thereof to the Bombay City Civil Court shall be heard along with Civil Suit No.615 of 2011.

¶23

5. Appeal disposed of accordingly.

¶24

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶26

2 Of 2

Abdul Haque Razak Ansari v. Smt. Hajra Abdul Razak Ansari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Haque Razak Ansari v. Smt. Hajra Abdul Razak Ansari

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

Citispace and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Master Chetan Rajkumar Doshi through His Guardian Shri Rajkumar M. Doshi Vs 1. the State of Maharashtra through the Director, Medical Education and Reasearch and 3 Ors.

Rajesh Saichand Sharma Vs Sudarshan Gangaram Rajula (Prop. of M/S. Adhishakti Associates,)

Rutvji Chemicals Limited Vs Icici Bank Limited and 6 Ors.

Sanjay Kakade, of Pune,. Vs M/S. Bhushan Petrofiles Pvt. Ltd.

Zarina @ Rashida Latif Qureshi Vs 1. Dilip Modji Donakia and Anr.