Allowed

Dr Eddie Pheroze Bharucha and 5 Ors. v. Ghansyam Sevakramani and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC23 Oct 2015NMS/523/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order allowed notices of motion filed by both parties seeking transfer and concurrent hearing of Suit No.2329 of 2013 in the City Civil Court with Suit No.1635 of 2007 pending in the High Court. The court ordered continuation of evidence in the High Court suit while allowing defendants to lead evidence for the transferred matter as rebuttal.

What did the court decide?

Notice of Motion No.523 of 2014 and Notice of Motion No.131 of 2015 allowed; Suit No.2329 of 2013 transferred; evidence to continue as directed.

Dr Eddie Pheroze Bharucha and 5 Ors. Vs Ghansyam… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

907.NMS-523-2014

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.523 OF 2014

¶5

¶6

SUIT NO.1635 OF 2007

¶7

Dr. Eddie Pheroze Bharucha & Ors. ….Applicants/ Org. Plaintiffs IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Dr. Eddie Pheroze Bharucha & Ors. ....Plaintiffs

¶8

IN THE MATTER BETWEEN :

¶9

V/s.

¶10

Ghanshyam Sevakramani & Ors. ....Defendants

¶11

WITH

¶12

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.131 OF 2015

¶13

¶14

SUIT NO.1635 OF 2007

¶15

Mr. Ghansham Shewakramani ….Applicant/ Org. Def. No.1 IN THE MATTER BETWEEN : Dr. Eddie Pheroze Bharucha & Ors. ....Plaintiffs

¶16

V/s.

¶17

Ghanshyam Sevakramani & Ors. ....Defendants

¶18

---Mr. J.P. Sen a/w. Mr. Vaibhav Ghogare and Ms. Tanya Jha i/b. Rajendra Bhagattjee for the plaintiffs.

¶19

Ms. Sheetal Thakur i/b. Vikram Chavan for the defendant nos.1 and 2.

¶20

CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM,J DATE : 23^rd October, 2015

¶21

P.C.:-

¶22

1 The plaintiffs have filed the present suit for an order and

¶23

Gauri Gaekwad

¶24

2 907.NMS-523-2014

¶25

decree against the defendants to quit, vacate and hand over peaceful possession of the suit premises in the possession of defendant nos.1,2 and 3 in a building known as Clark House, Colaba, Mumbai. This suit was filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2007.

¶26

2 The defendants have filed a suit in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay being Suit No.2329 of 2013 against the plaintiffs seeking declaration that the plaintiff is not a public trust and in effect questioning the title of the plaintiff. The defendants have also sought a permanent injunction against the plaintiffs restraining the plaintiffs from disturbing the defendants possession.

¶27

3 The issues arising in both the suits generally overlap and finding in one suit will certainly have a bearing in the other suit. Therefore, the plaintiffs have taken out the present notice of motion no.523 of 2014 praying for hearing of the suit No.2329 of 2013 pending in the City Civil Court, Bombay alongwith the present suit. The defendants have also filed a notice of motion bearing no.131 of 2015 seeking an order to transfer the suit no.2329 of 2013 pending in the City Civil Court and hear the same alongwith the present suit.

Gauri Gaekwad

907.NMS-523-2014

4 In view thereof, both the counsels for the plaintiffs and defendants have no objection if the respective notices of motion are allowed.

¶32

5 Therefore, both the notices of motion are allowed and accordingly disposed of with the following order :-

¶33

(a) the suit bearing no.2329 of 2013 to be transferred

¶34

to this court and heard alongwith suit no.1635 of 2007.

¶35

(b) since the evidence in suit no.1635 of 2007 is already began the same to be continued and concluded.

¶36

6 It is open for the defendants when they file their evidence in suit no.1635 of 2007 to incorporate the evidence they wish to lead in support of their suit no.2329 of 2013. Once the defendants complete their evidence, it is open for the plaintiffs to file their evidence in rebuttal to the evidence filed by the defendants to the extent of challenging the title of the plaintiffs.

(K.R.SHRIRAM,J)

Gauri Gaekwad

907.NMS-523-2014

CERTIFICATE

Certified to be true and correct copy of the original signed Judgment/Order.

¶43

Gauri Gaekwad

Dr Eddie Pheroze Bharucha and 5 Ors. v. Ghansyam Sevakramani and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Eddie Pheroze Bharucha and 5 Ors. v. Ghansyam Sevakramani and 2 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

Manjit Singh Basant Singh Sandhu Vs P.J. Joseph and Ors.

Mrs. Kumar Vijaya Laxmi Putta and 3 Ors.. Vs Sunrise Lifestyles and Homes Pvt. Ltd. and 4 Ors.

I.V.P. Ltd. Vs Kamal K.Shah and 4 Ors.

Shahhaz Rashid Hakeem and Anr. Vs Akhlaque Ahmed Jalil Ahmed and 4 Ors.

Avon Corporation Ltd. Vs Silver Construction and 5 Ors.

Smt. Chandrakala Satyanarayan Alias Satiprasad Khetan and 8 Ors. Vs M/S Bahubali Developers and 11 Ors.