Allowed

Shri Dattatray Narayan Konde and Ors. v. Sou.Devyani Yatin Tambe and Anr.

Bombay HC23 Jun 2017AO/824/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside an order granting an interim injunction without hearing the appellants. The matter was remanded to the trial court to decide the application afresh after hearing both sides within three months. The appellants were directed to pay costs and restrained from creating third-party interest.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 5th October, 2015 setting aside interim injunction is set aside; matter remanded to trial court for fresh decision after hearing; 3-month timeline for decision; Rs. 5000 costs to responden

Shri Dattatray Narayan Konde and Ors. Vs Sou.Devyani… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

8 ao 824-16.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 824 OF 2016 WITH

¶4

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1029 OF 2016

¶5

Dattatraya Narayan Konde & Ors. v/s.

..Appellant

Devyani Tambe & Ors.

..Respondents

Mr. Sachin Khandagale for the Appellant Mr. N.M. Wable i/b. Mr. S.R.Ghnvat for the Respondent no.1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J. DATED : 23^rd JUNE, 2017.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

The appellants herein have challenged the Order dated 5^th

¶13

October, 2015 whereby the learned 7^th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, has granted the application for injunction filed by the

¶14

aforesaid respondent in Special Civil Suit No. 1211 of 2014 and thereby restrained the appellants from alienating or creating third party interest in the suit property till final disposal of the suit.

¶15

Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties.

¶16

It is seen that the respondents herein had filed a suit for specific

1 of 3

pps

8 ao 824-16.doc

performance of agreement dated 25^th November, 2013. The appellants had filed a written statement and reply, and contested the suit as well as the application for injunction on several grounds. It is not in dispute that the appellants were not present on the date the application for injunction was fixed for hearing. The learned trial Judge therefore decided to proceed with the matter and disposed of the application without hearing the appellants.

¶21

Considering the various grounds raised by the appellants in the written statement as well as in the reply, in my considered view, opportunity needs to be given to the appellants to address all the issues before the trial Judge. Hence the order.

¶22

i) Order dated 5^th October, 2015 passed by the learned 7^th Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Judge to decide the application for interim injunction afresh after hearing both the sides.

¶23

ii) The learned trial Judge shall decide the said application as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶24

iii) The appellants shall pay costs of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five

2 of 3

pps

8 ao 824-16.doc

Thousand Only) to the respondent. The cost shall be deposited before the trial Court within a period of four weeks from today.

¶29

iv) The appellants shall not create any third party interest in respect of the suit property till disposal of the application for interim injunction.

¶30

(ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)

¶31

3 of 3

¶32

pps

Shri Dattatray Narayan Konde and Ors. v. Sou.Devyani Yatin Tambe and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Dattatray Narayan Konde and Ors. v. Sou.Devyani Yatin Tambe 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

Air India Limited Vs N.S. Juvekar and Anr.

Indian Card Clothing Co. Ltd. Vs C. Sivasankaran and 2 Ors.

Subhash Atmaram Parab Vs Indian Education Society and Anr.

Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and 4 Ors.

Shri Dattatray Narayan Konde and Ors. Vs Sou.Devyani Yatin Tambe and Anr.

M/S. Aafloat Textiles (India) Limited Vs M/S. Maneca Industries