Dismissed

Amardeep Patheja and Upinder Kaur Patheja v. Juhu Real Estate Developers Pvt.Ltd

Bombay HC5 Aug 2016APP/585/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against an interim order involving a property dispute, the High Court held the appeal non-maintainable as the impugned order did not finally decide the interim relief sought, merely recording an undertaking and keeping the matter for future hearing.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed; the underlying Notice of Motion was disposed of without adjudication on merits.

Amardeep Patheja and Upinder Kaur Patheja Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 appl-157.16

¶2

pmw

¶3

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

¶4

APPEAL (L.) NO.157 OF 2016 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.601 OF 2016 IN

¶5

SUIT NO.59 OF 2016

¶6

Mr. Amardeep Patheja and Anr. … Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Juhu Real Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. … Respondents

¶9

Mr. Rahul Chitnis a/w Ashok Verma i/by M/s. S. Pathak & Co. for the Appellants.

¶10

Mr. Amay Deosthale a/w Ms. Vimala Shah i/by M/s. Hariani & Co. for the Respondents.

¶11

CORAM : A.S. OKA & A.A. SAYED, JJ.

¶12

DATE : 5^th AUGUST, 2016

¶13

P.C.

¶14

1 The Appellants who are the original plaintiffs have taken an exception to the order dated 4^th July, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge on Notice of Motion taken out by the Applicants for interim reliefs in the Suit filed by them. The impugned order reads thus :-

¶15

“1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties.

¶16

The Applicants/Plaintiffs have claimed that they are entitled to a flat admeasuring carpet area of 1894 square feet in accordance with their Agreement with the Defendant. The learned Advocate for the Defendant

¶17

1 of 3

¶18

2 appl-157.16

¶19

on instructions undertakes not to sell, alienate, encumber, part with possession and/or create third party rights in respect of one flat admeasuring 1627 square feet (carpet area) between 5^th and 7 floors of the new building namely Equest. The undertaking is accepted.

¶20

Place the Notice of Motion for hearing and final disposal on 23^rd December, 2015.”

¶21

2 We find from the impugned order that it is not a judgment within the meaning of Letters Patent as even the prayer for grant of adinterim relief has not been decided by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has merely recorded undertaking of the defendants and kept the Notice of Motion for hearing on 23^rd December, 2015.

¶22

3 Therefore, in our view, the Appeal itself is not maintainable. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants states that Notice of Motion is not being finally heard.

¶23

4 If the Notice of Motion is not being finally heard, it is always open for the Appellants to move the learned Single Judge for grant of appropriate ad-interim relief as prayed for in the said Notice of Motion. Needless to add that if such an application is made, the learned

¶24

2 of 3

¶25

3 appl-157.16

¶26

Single Judge will decide the same in accordance with law. Subject to what is observed above, the Appeal is dismissed.

¶27

5 We make it clear that we have made no adjudication on merits of the pending Notice of Motion and the contentions of the parties are kept open. Pending Notice of Motion does not survive and the same is disposed.

¶28

3 of 3

Amardeep Patheja and Upinder Kaur Patheja v. Juhu Real Estate Developers Pvt.Ltd

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amardeep Patheja and Upinder Kaur Patheja v. Juhu Real Estate Developers Pvt.Ltd

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

Himanshu Khurana Vs Sweet Home Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.

Bhaimsain Khurana Vs Swet Home Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

Vrajeshkumar P Sampat and Anr. Vs Damayanti D. Sampat 3 Ors.

Amardeep Patheja and Upinder Kaur Patheja Vs Juhu Real Estate Developers Pvt.Ltd

Kanyalal Rewachand Mirani Vs M/S. Trans-Fabpower India Pvt. Ltd.

Usha Ramrao Bhojane Vs Mangala Shivdas Dindokar and 6 Others