The High Court of Bombay dismissed an appeal from an ad-interim order granting relief with a condition, holding it inappropriate to entertain the appeal while the underlying motion remained pending.
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.
app (l) 754-2012
1/1
sat
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL (LODGING) NO. 754 OF 2012 IN NOTICE OF MOTION (LODGING) NO. 1583 OF 2012 IN SUIT (LODGING) NO. 1231 OF 2012
Mr.Mir Mozam Ali
..Appellant
vs
Parnika Chandrashekhar Shelar @ Parnika Sachin Shinde & Anr.
..Respondents
None for Appellant.
CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, AND S.C. GUPTE, JJ.
16 JULY 2013.
P.C. :
The Appeal is from an ad-interim order of the learned Single Judge dated 16 July 2012. The Motion is still pending before the learned Single Judge. By the impugned order, ad-interim relief had been granted restraining the Second Defendant interalia from creating any third party interest in respect of the suit flat on the condition that the Plaintiff deposits an amount of Rupees Nine lakhs in court within six weeks.
2 Since the impugned order is an ad-interim order and the Motion is still pending, we are not inclined to entertain the Appeal at this stage. However, we keep open all the rights and contentions of the parties at the hearing of the Motion.
3 The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.
(Dr. D.Y.Chandrachud, J.)
(S.C. Gupte, J.)
Mr. Mir Mozam Ali
Parnika Chandrashekhar Shelar @ Parnika Sachin Shinde & Anr.
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
S.C. Gupte
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
