Partly allowed

Mr. Gurjit Singh Chadha v. Prabhu Krushnarao Bhore

Bombay HC29 Jan 2013AO/66/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge quashed an interim order awarding specific performance in a suit for sale-agreement dispute. On appeal, the court allowed the appellant's undertaking to retain possession of a specific flat without alienation, permitting sole office use during pendency, and remitted the suit for full adjudication.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the interim order of the trial court; appellant to retain Flat No. B-36 until suit disposal.

Mr. Gurjit Singh Chadha Vs Prabhu Krushnarao Bhore — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

ao66-13.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.66 OF 2013

¶4

Gurjit Singh Chadha .. Appellant Versus Prabhu Krushnarao Bhore .. Respondent

¶5

Mr.Anil R. Mishra for appellant

¶6

Mr.Atul Damle with Ms.P.L.Bachani i/b. M/s.I.R.Joshi & Co. for respondent.

¶7

CORAM : S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. 29^th January 2013.

¶8

P.C.:

¶9

1] This appeal from order challenges the trial court's interim

¶10

order dated 14^th December 2012 in Notice of Motion No.2437 of 2012 in S.C.Suit No.2274 of 2012.

¶11

2] The only contention raised by Mr.Mishra appearing for

¶12

appellant original defendant in the suit is that the trial court has virtually decreed the suit at an interlocutory stage. The notice

¶13

of motion is made absolute and the appellant is directed to

¶14

¶15

ao66-13.doc

¶16

provide accommodation of 140 sft in the new building. Such an order putting the appellant original plaintiff in possession of the accommodation of 140 sft is nothing but awarding specific performance of the contract which the appellant is disputing and seriously. His other version is that the said agreement is terminated and without deciding this issue straight away the aforesaid directions have been passed and nothing remains for adjudication in the said suit.

¶17

3] Upon such an apprehension of Mr.Mishra, I had on earlier occasion directed to take oral instructions as to whether the appellant is ready and willing to provide another flat in the terms of the agreement as pleaded in the plaint. The matter was adjourned till today for passing orders at the request of Mr.Mishra.

¶18

4] Upon taking instructions Mr.Mishra states that the

¶19

appellant who is present in court informs him that there is no

¶20

¶21

ao66-13.doc

¶22

tenament available in the rehabilitation component of the building. However, there is a flat in the sale component which is flat No.B-36, A Wing on 7^th floor. It is in possession of the

¶23

appellant original defendant and he is utilising it as his office. That flat has not been agreed to be sold to any third party nor is their any intention of the appellant to transfer or alienate and equally encumber it in any manner. That flat is retained by the appellant for himself. The appellant has undertaken through Mr.Mishra to this Court that this flat will be kept vacant and will not be allotted, sold, transferred, alienated or encumbered in any manner in favour of any third party. This will be the arrangement till the pendency of the subject suit. However, the appellant may be permitted to utilise it as his office and subject to the outcome of the suit and without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both parties.

¶24

5] The respondent plaintiff is also agreeable to the above

¶25

course. To my mind, as long as the subject matter of the suit is

¶26

¶27

ao66-13.doc

¶28

protected and suit is not rendered academic and infructuous, after the original plaintiff having made out a prima facie case and balance of convenience being also in his favour that I am of the view that the undertaking of the original defendant appellant before me would sufficiently protect and safeguard interest of parties.

¶29

6] In the light of the above and finding some substance in the contention of Mr.Mishra, the order dated 14^th December 2012 is quashed and set aside. The original plaintiff need not remit any

¶30

sums. However, the appellant – original defendant during the pendency of the suit will not transfer, alienate, encumber or part with possession or induct any third party in any manner in the said flat being Flat No.B-36, A Wing, 7^th floor in the sale component building of the subject property and this position will be maintained by him till the pendency of the suit and its final disposal. However, this order will not prevent the appellant from utilising this flat as his office purely for himself

¶31

5 ao66-13.doc

¶32

and without inducting anybody else or any agency as a third party therein. This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of both the sides. The trial court shall decide the suit uninfluenced by its tentative and prima facie conclusion. All contentions of both sides are kept open. Appeal is disposed of. Civil Application No.71 of 2013 does not survive in the light of disposal of the suit and the same is dismissed as such.

¶33

(S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J)

Mr. Gurjit Singh Chadha v. Prabhu Krushnarao Bhore

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Gurjit Singh Chadha v. Prabhu Krushnarao Bhore

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

Ram Prakash Mangal Dhobi Vs Subhash Shripal Patil and Ors.

Mr. Bhupendra Kalyanji Shah Vs Smt. Sunita Vithal Survey Alias Surekha

Mr. Bajrang Makhanlal Agarwal Vs Shri. Shivkumar Shankarao Thakur and Ors.

Deelip Pralhad Shisode Vs Vinayak Narayan Deshpande

Suresh Dnyandeo Chavan Vs Mr. Vikram Ganpatrao Ghadge

Aslam Umer Ghojaria Vs Mistry Govind and Brothers and Ors.