Dismissed

Sea View Shopping Arcade Pvt. Ltd. v. Sky Lark Co-Operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC8 Apr 2019NMS/308/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for restoration of a suit dismissed sixteen to eighteen years prior for non-service of summons. The court noted the extraordinary delay and potential prejudice to defendants despite the applicant's affidavit regarding family tragedy.

What did the court decide?

Notice of motion for restoration of suit dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sea View Shopping Arcade Pvt. Ltd. Vs Sky Lark… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

39-NMS308-19.DOC

¶2

Arun

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 308 OF 2019

¶4

IN

¶5

SUIT NO. 301 OF 1996

¶6

Sea View Shopping Arcade Pvt Ltd…Applicant/
Plaintiff

¶7

Versus
Skylark Coop Housing Society Ltd & Ors…Defendants

¶8

Mr Bharat Vaishnava, i/b B Vaishnava & Co, for the Applicant.
Mr Milind More, AGP, for State.
Ms Shweta B Kamble, i/b Lakshmi Murali & Associates, for
Respondents.

¶9

CORAM:G.S. PATEL, J
DATED:8th April 2019

¶10

PC:-

¶11

1.The Notice of Motion is for restoration of a suit. The
Prothonotary & Senior Master dismissed it on 27th June 2001. He
did so because the Plaintiffs had not served the writ of summons on
the Defendants.

¶12

2.The restoration Motion is delayed by 18 years. Extraordinary
as this delay is, it is eclipsed by the even ore extraordinary reasons
given in the Affidavit in Support. There, the deponent, Abhijeet,

¶13

Page 1 of 2
8th April 2019

¶14

39-NMS308-19.DOC

¶15

tells of his father and brother being brutally murdered, one in
Chiplun and the other near Satara by what is described as a land
mafia. He says that he and his family were in shock and were unable
to attend to this litigation.

¶16

3.The suit itself is for specific performance. Although there
may be a tragedy to the Plaintiffs’ case, I cannot be oblivious to the
fact that the 1st Defendant is a cooperative society with individual
members. Defendants Nos. 2 and 3 are representatives of the
Government. Property prices have changed dramatically in the time
that has passed since the date of dismissal. The matter has been
closed for 18 years, and to re-open it now would cause immense
prejudice to all the Defendants. Apart from the fact that the
explanation does not extend over this time span, there is no amount
of costs that can fairly be imposed on the Applicant that would
compensate the Defendants for the enormous prejudice likely to be
caused.

¶17

4.The Notice of Motion is dismissed. There will be no order as
to costs.

¶18

(G. S. PATEL, J)

¶19

Page 2 of 2
8th April 2019

Sea View Shopping Arcade Pvt. Ltd. v. Sky Lark Co-Operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sea View Shopping Arcade Pvt. Ltd. v. Sky Lark Co-Operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd. and 2 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

Mangesh P. Edekr Vs Ramesh Prabhakar Edekar and Ors. and Zarine Mangesh Edekar and Ors.

Shashin Vasanji Shah HUF Vs Ahuja Properties and Developers and 3 Ors.

Jiger Shashin Shah Vs Ahuja Properties and Developers and 3 Ors.

Thinkink Print Solutions L. L. P. Vs Inspiraton Publication (India)

G.Ram Construction Co. Vs Chowgule and Co.(Hind) Pvt.Ltd.

Chloro Controls Equipment Pvt.Ltd. Vs De Nora Water Technologies Inc.