Disposed

Abdul Sattar Lakdawalla v. Sidhram N.Gardas and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Oct 2012APP/668/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay, relying on the interest of justice due to the appellant's age/health, stayed the impugned order directing eviction, ordered the suit to be decided expeditiously by April 2013 in the City Civil Court, and has the lower court decide on eviction only if the suit cannot proceed, after hearing the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 12 September 2012 to remain in abeyance for three months; suit to be decided expeditiously by the City Civil Court by 30 April 2013.

Abdul Sattar Lakdawalla Vs Sidhram N.Gardas… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2012)

kambli

LPA(L)-700.12

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

APPEAL (L) NO.700 OF 2012 IN

¶7

COURT RECEIVER'S REPORT NO.78 OF 2012

SUIT NO.4686 OF 2000

WITH

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2936 OF 2012 IN

¶12

APPEAL (L) NO.700 OF 2012

¶13

… Mr.Abdul Sattar Lakdawala ...Appellant v/s. Anusuya Sidhram Gardas & Ors. ...Respondents …

¶14

Mr.V.S.Kapse for the appellant Mr.Pachpan Singh with Ms.Sushma Sinkar for respondents.

¶15

CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. & N.M. JAMDAR, J. DATE : 9 October 2012

¶16

P.C.

¶17

This appeal is directed against the order dated 12 September 2012 of the learned trial Judge of this Court on court receiver's report. On the basis that the appellant-plaintiff has inducted other persons in the suit premises, though the appellant-plaintiff was appointed as an agent of the court receiver, the learned trial Judge has directed the court receiver to take physical possession of the suit premises from the plaintiff.

1 Of 3

LPA(L)-700.12

kambli

The learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to the grounds in the appeal memo indicating that the appellant himself, aged 75 years, was not well when the matter was heard on 12 September 2012 and the learned counsel for the appellant was before the another Court when the matter was heard. Subsequent request to give hearing by the learned counsel for the appellant was rejected by the trial Judge on 12 September 2012 itself.

¶23

In the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the fact that the appellant-plaintiff was appointed as agent of the court receiver as far back in December, 2000, we are of the view that interest of justice would be served, if this appeal is disposed of in terms of the following directions:-

¶24

(i) The order dated 12 September 2012 shall remain in abeyance for a period three months from today.

¶25

(ii) In the meantime, at the hearing of the suit on 10 December 2012 before the City Civil Court, to which the suit is transferred, the parties shall keep their witnesses present and the learned trial Judge of the City Civil Court shall consider recording of evidence of the parties and their witnesses and decide the suit in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and preferably by 30 April 2013, as the suit is of the year 2000.

2 Of 3

kambli

LPA(L)-700.12

(iii) In the meantime, if the suit cannot be proceeded with, in spite of cooperation of the parties, it will be open to the learned trial Judge to consider the court receiver's report and pass appropriate order thereon, after giving an opportunity of being heard to the learned counsel for the appellant, without being influenced by the order dated 12 September 2012.

¶31

(iv) Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

¶32

In view of disposal of appeal, notice of motion does not survive for consideration. Disposed of as such.

¶33

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶34

(N.M. JAMDAR, J.)

¶35

3 Of 3

Abdul Sattar Lakdawalla v. Sidhram N.Gardas and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Sattar Lakdawalla v. Sidhram N.Gardas and 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

Mpower Realty Llp.. and 2 Ors. Vs Sarojkumar Nathmal Agarwar, and 12 Ors.

Mr. Sarjerao Janardhan Hande and Ors. Vs Maharashtra State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Ltd.

Vijaykumar Ramrao Dhoke Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

O.P. Roongta Vs Icici Securities Ltd.

Khushnuma I. Khan and Raghib I. Khan Vs Asadullah Khan @ Sameer Khan and 3 Ors.

Namrata Anil Ghorpade Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.