Disposed

Mrs. Alka Jitendra Trivedi v. Chirag Trikamlal Shah and Anr.

Bombay HC24 Mar 2017AO/331/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of an appeal challenging the refusal of an interim mandatory injunction. While declaring the impugned order non-interferable, the Court directed respondents to maintain status quo, refrain from creating third-party rights, and not part with possession during the suit.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to maintain status quo ante, refrain from creating third-party rights, and not part with possession of suit premises during pendency of suit.

Mrs. Alka Jitendra Trivedi Vs Chirag Trikamlal Shah and Anr. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

919-ao-331-2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.331 OF 2016 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.428 OF 2016 IN

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.331 OF 2016

¶5

Mrs.Alka Jitendra Trivedi ...Appellant/Applicant Versus Chirag Trikamlal Shah & Anr. ...Respondents

¶6

Ms.Jegna Shah a/w Ms.Meetal Savla i/b Mr.P.M. Shah for the Appellant/Applicant.

¶7

Mr.Amarendra Mishra for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶8

CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.

¶9

DATE : 24 MARCH 2017

¶10

P.C.

¶11

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶12

The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 11 December 2015 made by the learned Trial Judge declining the appellant-plaintiff mandatory injunction at the interim stage. In the Notice of Motion, the appellant had applied for restoration of possession and maintenance of status-quo ante.

¶13

N.S. Kamble page 1 of 3

¶14

919-ao-331-2016

¶15

The learned Trial Judge, in the impugned order, has stated that this is a matter which will require trial and therefore, a relief of such nature, need not be granted at the interim stage itself. The learned Trial Judge, on this basis, has declined the relief of mandatory injunction at the interim stage. At this stage, there is no necessity to interfere with the impugned order. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, even the respondents, are required to be put to terms. This means that even respondents will have to maintain status-quo during the pendency of the suit. The respondents are directed to maintain status-quo . The respondents are also restrained from creating any third party rights and parting with the possession of the suit premises during the pendency of the suit.

¶16

The learned Trial Judge is requested to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

¶17

In disposing of the suit on its own merits and in accordance with law, the learned Trial Judge need not be influenced by any of the observations made in the impugned order and for that matter the order passed by this Court.

¶18

N.S. Kamble page 2 of 3

¶19

919-ao-331-2016

¶20

All contentions of all parties are left open for the

¶21

determination by the learned Trial Judge.

¶22

The appeal is accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. In view of the disposal of the Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is also disposed of.

¶23

N.S. Kamble page 3 of 3

Mrs. Alka Jitendra Trivedi v. Chirag Trikamlal Shah and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Alka Jitendra Trivedi v. Chirag Trikamlal Shah and Anr.

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

Sri Mangal Murty Marketing Vs State of Maharashtra and 3 Ors.

Shri. Shashant Anand Kamat Vs Smt. Malini Balaji Kamat, Nee Malini Anant Waravdekar

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Kushrana Balkishan Maniyar and Others

Smt. Sunita Anant Mehta Vs Prakash Mansukhlal Shah

Mr. Sachin M. Madhwani Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Shri. Mithialal Bhikamdas Oswal(Dead)Thro. His L.Rs. and REP.1A.SMT. Sayerbai Mithalal Oswal and or Vs Shri. Jahangir Nasserwanji Dhanjisha (Dead) Thro. His L.Rs.and Rep. 1-C Smt. Colly Latif