Disposed

Nilgiri Gardens Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Chairman / Secretary and Ors. v. Parsik Paradise Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Secretary Chairman and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Apr 2013WP/9263/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging an interim injunction in a property right-of-way dispute. The Court held that since the main suit was pending, it was just and proper to expedite the hearing and disposal of the suit within a specific time frame while maintaining the status quo, without deciding the merits of the injunction order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; status quo maintained; suit RCS No.103 of 2010 directed to be disposed of by 31st December, 2013.

Nilgiri Gardens Co-Operative Housing Society Limited… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2013)

wp.9263-2012.sxw

acd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 9263 OF 2012

¶6

Niligiri Gardens Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Ors.

¶7

..Petitioners.

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Parsik Paradise Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. & Anr.

¶10

..Respondents.

¶11

Mr. P.N. Patil with Shri Laxman Deshmukh for Petitioners. Mr. Atul Rjadhyaksha, Sr. Counsel with V. Mishra i/b M. Tripathi & Co., for Respondent No.1.

¶12

CORAM: R.M. SAVANT, J.

¶13

DATE : 17^th April, 2013.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

1 The writ jurisdiction of this court is invoked against the order

¶16

dated 14.9.2012 passed by the learned Ad-Hoc District Judge-2, Thane by

¶17

which order the Appeal filed by the petitioners herein being Misc. Civil

¶18

Appeal No.76 of 2012 came to be dismissed and resultantly the order passed by the trial court dated 5.5.2012 in the application-Exhibit 5

¶19

¶20

wp.9263-2012.sxw

¶21

whereby the application for temporary injunction restraining the petitioners i.e. defendant nos.1 to 3 from causing obstruction and interference to the plaintiffs use of the way through the plot belonging to the defendant nos.1 to 3 came to be confirmed.

¶22

2 The dispute is as regards the right of way claimed by the respondent no.1-society through the plot belonging to the defendant nos.1 to 3 i.e. the petitioners herein. It appears that the said plot belonging to the respondent no.1-society is on the rear side of the plot which is belonging to the petitioners. The petitioner-society is facing the road which is one of the arterial roads in Navi Mumbai being Amra Marg. The defendant no.1 has no access to the said road as it appears that behind the plot of the respondent no.1-society there is a hill and on either side there is construction and therefore access to the said plot is claimed by the defendant no.1 through the plot of the respondent no.1-society. It appears that the plot of the respondent no.1-society was alloted by CIDCO to the same lessee i.e. one Kailasnath and Associates as the plot on which the petitioner-society is situated. In the suit in question, the plaintiffs filed an application for temporary injunction for restraining the defendant nos.1 to 3 from preventing the plaintiffs from using the way through the plot of the

¶23

¶24

wp.9263-2012.sxw

¶25

defendant nos.1 to 3 for access to the said road being Amra Marg. The said application for temporary injunction came to be allowed by the trial court

¶26

as the trial court was of the view that since there was no access to the plaintiff-society and since at the time of allotment of the plot to the original lessee i.e. Kailasnath and Associates the access was through the plot of the defendant nos.1 to 3 that the trial court granted injunction. The matter was carried in Appeal by the defendant nos.1 to 3 by filing Misc. Civil Appeal No.76 of 2012. The lower appellate court has confirmed the order passed by the trial court by the impugned order.

¶27

3 After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at some length, this court was of the view that considering the nature of the controversy namely the access claimed by the Respondent no.1 through the Defendant no.1-Society and considering the far reaching consequences that the same would have for both the societies, it would be just and proper that the suit in question filed by the plaintiff-society itself be decided within a particular time frame so that the parties know where they stand insofar as access is concerned as the plaintiff-society has to carry out further construction upon the plot of land belonging to it. Upon this, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.1 i.e. the plaintiff on instructions states that the

¶28

¶29

wp.9263-2012.sxw

¶30

Respondent No.1 is agreeable to the said course of action being followed i.e. hearing of the suit be expedited and be directed to be disposed of within a particular time frame.

¶31

4 In view of the said statement made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1-society there is no warrant to pass a detailed speaking order. Hence, without going into the merits of the impugned order, the following directions are issued which would operate pending the suit:

¶32

i) Both the parties are directed to maintain the status-quo as

¶33

of date pending the suit;

¶34

ii) Hearing of the suit in question being RCS No.103 of 2010 is expedited and is directed to be disposed of by 31^st December, 2013;

¶35

iii) Needless to state that the contentions of the parties have

¶36

not been gone into in the present proceedings and it would be for the trial court to decide the suit on its own merits and in accordance with law uninfluenced by the impugned order or the observations if any, in the instant order;

¶37

¶38

wp.9263-2012.sxw

¶39

iv) The contentions of the parties are kept open for being urged before the Trial Court.

¶40

5 Learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Senior

¶41

Counsel for the respondent no.1-society state that their respective clients would cooperate in the disposal of the suit within the time frame stipulated in the instant order.

¶42

6 In the light of the directions as aforesaid, the writ petition to

¶43

stand disposed of.

¶44

(R.M. SAVANT, J.)

Nilgiri Gardens Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Chairman / Secretary and Ors. v. Parsik Paradise Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Secretary Chairman and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nilgiri Gardens Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Chairman / Secretary and Ors. v. Parsik Paradise Co-Operative Housing Society Limited, through Secretary Chairman 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

Deepak Ramesh Mehta Vs Vasudeo Kishan Kadam

Sou. Kamalabai Mahadeo Mirgane Vs Shri. Gokuldas Ambadas Shelake and Anr.

Shri. Govind Genu Kalokhe Vs Shri. Ramdas Tukaram Kalohe and Anr.

Bhagwan Gajanan Kokre and Anr. Vs Maruti Ramchandra Kokre and Ors.

Ambegaon Taluka Sheti Utpadak and Vitarak Sangh, through Managing Committee Member and Treasurer Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mr. Vishwajeet Hanamantrao Pisal Vs Hindustan Sugars Ltd, through Bhushan Sudhakar Salunke and Ors.