The High Court of Judicature at Bombay dismissed an appeal challenging the Trial Judge's order rejecting a Notice of Motion in a civil suit concerning property possession. The Single Judge found no jurisdictional error or serious perversity warranting interference and disposed of related civil applications.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
6-aost-947-18.doc
Ladda 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER Stamp No. 947 of 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION Stamp No. 949 of 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION Stamp No. 2000 of 2018 IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER Stamp No. 947 of 2018
Iqbal Hussain Sultan Chaudhary .. Appellant. Vs
Amirullah Mohammed Shafi Khan & Ors.. Respondents.
Mr. Afroz A. Siddiqui for the Appellant. Mr. Wasim Khan for Respondent No.1.
CORAM : M.S. SONAK, J. DATE : 13th August, 2018.
P.C.:-
the documents produced on record by respondent no.1-defendant
1/4
Ladda 2 6-aost-947-18.doc
relate to room no.8 in the Chawl. He points out that there is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant is the owner of the entire Chawl and the land where the land is constructed. He points out that the learned Trial Judge has misconstrued the documents produced by respondent no.1, as also the submissions made in the written statement filed by respondent No.1 and on such basis rejected the appellant's notice of motion. He submits that there is ample material on record which indicates that respondent no.1 is attempting to encroach upon the portion of the Chawl in which respondent No.1 has no interest whatsoever. In these circumstances, Mr Siddiqui submits that the notice of motion taken out by the appellant ought to have been made absolute.
2/4
Ladda 3 6-aost-947-18.doc
facie view taken by the learned Trial Judge and therefore, this appeal may be dismissed.
is no proper description of the suit premises. The plaint refers to Exhibit-A which is a rough sketch. From the perusal of the sketch, again, it is quite clear that the description of the suit premises is quite vague. Mr. Siddiqui, learned Counsel for the appellant points out that there is a reference to police chowky and the suit premises are adjacent to the police station chowky. All these are matters to be established in the course of the trial. However, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order which has only taken a prima facie view.
3/4
Ladda 4 6-aost-947-18.doc
Court in the case of Wander Ltd & Anr Vs. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990
(Supp) SCC 727 there is really no case is made out so as to warrant interference.
of.
(M.S. SONAK, J.)
4/4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dismissing the Notice of Motion warrants interference at the appellate stage given the lack of jurisdictional error.
Whether the vagueness in the description of the suit premises in the plaint constitutes a ground to interfere with the trial court's prima facie view.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Wander Ltd & Anr Vs. Antox India P. Ltd.Relied on¶27
Wander Ltd & Anr Vs. Antox India P. Ltd. 1990 (Supp) SCC 727 · Who else cites this
Iqbal Hussain Sultan Chaudhary
Amirullah Mohammed Shafi Khan & Ors.
M.S. SONAK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
