Disposed

Mangilal Gulabchand Jain and 2 Ors. v. Kola Bhaskar Naidu and 16 Ors.

Bombay HC5 Mar 2013NMS/1074/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A written statement that the notice of motion raised a preliminary issue regarding limitation. The court directed counsel to lead evidence and admissibility of documents. The main Notice of Motion was adjourned sine die.

What did the court decide?

Directing plaintiffs to file evidence and affidavit of documents within four weeks; main Notice of Motion disposed of; corollary Notice of Motion adjourned sine die.

Mangilal Gulabchand Jain and 2 Ors. Vs Kola Bhaskar… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2013)

NMS No.1074_2012

jsn

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

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1074 OF 2012

¶6

ALONGWITH

¶7

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3019 OF 2008

¶8

¶9

SUIT NO.2254 OF 2008

¶10

Shri Mangilal Gulabchand Jain & Ors.

¶11

-- Plaintiffs

¶12

V/s.

¶13

Shri Kola Bhaskar Naidu & Ors.

¶14

-- Defendants

¶15

Sachin Chavan, Adv. i/b. S.S. Kulkarni, Adv. for the Plaintiffs. Mr. Pradeep Kadam, Adv. for the Defendant No.3. Mr. M.S. Lad, Adv. for the Defendant Nos.4 to 8.

¶16

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 5th March, 2013.

¶17

P.C. :-

¶18

The issue of limitation has been raised. The Plaintiffs are the owners of the suit flat. The Plaintiffs entered into an agreement with Defendant Nos.1 and 2 who in turn entered with an agreement with Defendant No.3 in 1982. Defendant No.3 has constructed on the suit plot of land. Upon paying consideration and upon being executed a Power of Attorney the conveyance has been executed in favour of Defendant No.3. The building has been constructed. The Plaintiffs have sued in 2008 for possession of the suit land upon removing the structure already erected, for declaration that the lay outs and plans are illegal and other incidental reliefs.

¶19

Ad-interim relief in the first Notice of Motion has been refused. In this Notice of Motion the Plaintiffs would have to show how the suit is not barred by law of limitation as that issue has been raised.

NMS No.1074_2012

jsn

The issue is framed as follows :

¶24

Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation.

¶25

The issue shall have to be answered upon the evidence of the Plaintiffs. Counsel on behalf of the Plaintiffs state that the Plaintiffs shall lead evidence. The Plaintiffs shall file their affidavit of examination in chief as also the affidavit of documents in that regard within four weeks from today. The admissibility of the documents shall thereafter be considered.

¶26

Notice of Motion is disposed off accordingly.

¶27

Notice of Motion No.3019 of 2008 is adjourned Sine die to be decided after the preliminary issue is decided U/s.9A of the CPC.

¶28

( ROSHAN DALVI, J. )

Mangilal Gulabchand Jain and 2 Ors. v. Kola Bhaskar Naidu and 16 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangilal Gulabchand Jain and 2 Ors. v. Kola Bhaskar Naidu and 16 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Goldie Parshotam Sud Vs Mr. Ajit Sawant and Anr.

Olice Johnson Dsouza @ Olive Machado Dsouza Vs Johnson Pascol Dsouza and Ors.

Rajratna Vithalrao Kadam and Ors. Vs Shubhangi Rajratna Kadam and Anr.

Ketan Ghanshyam Shah and Ors. Vs Pujja @ Heena Ketan Shah and Anr.

Tata Capital Ltd. Vs Anand Swarup Boeroi and Suresh M. Oberoi

Maitreyee Tirthankar Basu Vs Tirthankar Sunil Basu