Dismissed

Sayeed Begum Gul Mohd Khan and Others v. Muiroddin Sharifoddin Kavirang Alies Jahagirdar and Others

Bombay HC13 Feb 2017CA/1530/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is an order dismissing a civil application seeking restraint against the original petitioner from creating third-party interest or altering suit property. The High Court held that the application failed to provide specific details of instances regarding construction, finding the averments insufficient to warrant the order.

What did the court decide?

Application rejected with costs, though applicants retain right to make similar application if circumstances change.

Sayeed Begum Gul Mohd Khan and Others Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

( 1 ) ca1530.17

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1530 OF 2017 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 603 OF 2010

¶5

Sayeed Begum Gul Mohd. Khan & Ors.

¶6

..Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Muniroddhin Sharfoddin Kavijang alias
Jahagirdar & Ors.

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

Mr.R.R. Totla h/f. Mr. B.M. Kate, Advocate for the
applicants.

¶11

Mr.R.R. Mantri, Advocate for the respondent/petitioner in
w.p.

¶12

CORAM : S.B. SHUKRE,J.
DATED :13.02.2017

¶13

P.C. :-

¶14

1.Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and
learned Counsel for the original petitioner. By this
application, relief has been sought against the original
petitioner in the nature that he be restrained from
creating third party interest and changing the nature of
the suit property till the disposal of the writ petition.

¶15

2.In order that such prayer can be sustained, it
is necessary for the party making such prayer to base the
apprehension nurtured upon some instances by giving some
details, so that the Court can view it as a reasonable
apprehension warranting issuance of such restraining

¶16

order. Perusal of the application discloses that no such
details and no such instances are given in the
application. Learned Counsel for the applicants has
invited my attention to some photographs filed along with
this application showing that some construction is going
on somewhere. It is not known as to on what property
this construction is going on, at whose behest it is
being done and what was the starting point of the
construction. These photographs are not supported by
averments made in the application as necessary details
are lacking in the application. Admittedly, there are
five suit properties and therefore general reference to
the “suit property” would not be sufficient.

¶17

3.Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that
he would get further instructions in the matter and
submit additional affidavit. This is not something which
can be supported only when deficiencies are pointed out
by the Court. If such construction was really there, I
do not think that applicants would have failed to pin
point the same in the manner discussed earlier at the
time of filing of the application itself. Therefore, the
request for submitting additional affidavit cannot be
granted. In the circirumstances the application deserves
to be rejected and it is rejected accordingly with costs.

¶18

4.Rejection of this application, however, shall
not come in the way of the applicants to make similar
application provided it is warranted by the change in the
circumstances.

¶19

snk/2017/FEB17/ ca1530.17

Sayeed Begum Gul Mohd Khan and Others v. Muiroddin Sharifoddin Kavirang Alies Jahagirdar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sayeed Begum Gul Mohd Khan and Others v. Muiroddin Sharifoddin Kavirang Alies Jahagirdar and Others

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

Harishchandra Vitthalrao Lahane and Another Vs the State Election Commission Maharashtra State Mumbai and Others

Rahul Dnyanoba Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Prayagbai Sambhaji More Vs the State Election Commission Maharashtra State Mumbai and Others

Sanjay Bhaskar Potdar and Another Vs the State Co. Operative Election Authority Maharashtra State Pune and Others

Nidhi Sales Thr Proprietor Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Devidas Shamrao Pawar Vs Nanda Devidas Pawar