Allowed

Virji Devraj Gada v. Avinash Pai Raiturkar and 13 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Apr 2018APP/198/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against an ad-interim order restraining third party rights was disposed of. The High Court held that all contentions could be raised in the pending Notice of Motion. Appeal allowed with instructions to file a reply within one week.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; appellants to file reply to Notice of Motion within one week; all contentions kept open for hearing in pending motion.

Virji Devraj Gada Vs Avinash Pai Raiturkar and 13 Ors. — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

5-appl 56-18 in nmsl 68-18

¶3

psv

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL (L.) NO.56 OF 2018 IN

¶5

NOTICE OF MOTION (L.) NO.68 OF 2018 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION (STAMP) NO.73 OF 2018

¶6

Virji Devraj Gada ...Appellant Vs. Avinash Pai Raiturkar & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr.J. Reis, Senior Counsel, with Mr.Ashutosh Gavnekar, Mr.B.Reis, Mr.Ajit Tamhane, Ms.Savita Sawalkar i/b. Tamhane and Company for Appellant.

¶8

Mr.Mayur Khandeparkar i/b. Gandhar Raikar for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶9

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND G.S. KULKARNI, JJ. DATE : 3^rd APRIL 2018

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

This appeal of defendant no.1, arises against the impugned ad-interim order dated 19 January 2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Notice of Motion (Lodg) No.68 of 2018 whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to grant an ad-interim protection to the plaintiffs by restraining the defendants from creating any third party rights or parting with possession of the 1/12^th share in the suit property described in Exhibit-B to the plaint and 1/6^th share in the property described in Exhibit-N to the plaint.

¶12

2 5-appl 56-18 in nmsl 68-18

¶13

The learned Single Judge while granting the said ad-interim relief has directed that replies to the notice of motion be filed within four weeks and rejoinder be filed within two weeks thereafter, and directed that the notice of motion be listed for hearing after six weeks.

¶14

We have heard Mr.Reis, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and Mr.Khandeparkar, learned Counsel for the respondents 1 to 5.

¶15

Having considered the nature of the impugned order which is an ad-interim order we are of the opinion that all the contentions which are being urged by the appellant in this appeal, can very well be urged by the appellant in the pending notice of motion, on which the impugned ad-interim order is passed. The appellant is yet to file a reply to the notice of motion.

¶16

We accordingly propose to dispose of this appeal keeping open all contentions of the appellant and the respondents to be agitated before the learned Single Judge in the pending notice of motion. The appellant's reply to the notice of motion be filed within one week from today.

¶17

3 5-appl 56-18 in nmsl 68-18

¶18

Needless to observe that the learned Single Judge shall decide the notice of motion on its own merits and without being influenced by the impugned ad-interim order.

¶19

Notice of motion be considered as expeditiously as possible. The appellants are at liberty to approach the learned Single Judge with a request to take up the hearing of the notice of motion.

¶20

Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. No costs.

¶21

[G.S. KULKARNI, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

Virji Devraj Gada v. Avinash Pai Raiturkar and 13 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virji Devraj Gada v. Avinash Pai Raiturkar and 13 Ors.

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

Capt. Dr Rahul Ramchandra Wagh and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 10 Ors.

Shiv Shakti Enterprises Vs Anchor Electaricals Private Limited

Lalchand Yadav and Ors. Vs M/S. Mukesh Dye Works and Ors.

Pujit Aggarwal and Anr. Vs Vardhaman Developers Limited

Gunjan Pujit Aggarwal and Anr. Vs Vardhaman Developers Ltd.

Hemanshu Manibai Thakkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.