Disposed

Allen Gerald Dsilva S/O Mr. John Baptist Dsilva v. Grace Augustine Pinto W/O Mr. Augustine Pinto and Ors.

Bombay HC4 May 2022IA/3036/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an interim application arising from an appeal regarding possession in a suit, the High Court granted leave to the appellant-plaintiff to seek recall of a trial court order and disposed of the pending interim application.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to applicant-plaintiff to move for recall of trial court order dated 30.6.2021; interim application disposed of.

Allen Gerald Dsilva S/O Mr. John Baptist Dsilva Vs Grace… — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

21-IA-3036-2022.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3036 OF 2022

¶4

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.187 OF 2021

¶6

Allen Gerald D’Silva ...Applicant Vs Grace A. Pinto & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. Sanjeev Sawant i/by Mr. Prashant D. Jadhav for the Applicant/Appellant.

¶8

Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J. DATE : MAY 4, 2022.

¶10

P.C. :

¶11

Heard Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the applicant and

¶12

Mr. Saraogi, learned counsel for the respondents.

¶13

2 In Notice of Motion No.1200 of 2021 taken out by the respondent/defendant no.1, in Short Cause Suit No.968 of 2021, the

¶14

learned trial Court vide order dated 30 th June, 2021, restrained the appellant/plaintiff, temporarily from disturbing the possession of the respondent no.1 in premises described in Clause 7 of the operative

¶15

Shivgan 1/3

¶16

21-IA-3036-2022.odt

¶17

part of the order.

¶18

3 Feeling aggrieved by that order, Original Plaintiff has preferred the Appeal From Order No.187 of 2021. Pending Appeal, appellant has moved Interim Application No.3036 of 2022.

¶19

4 Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, on instructions, submits that the Notice of Motion No.1200 of 2021 moved by the defendants in the suit, was not supported by affidavit. Submission is that the motion itself was not maintainable for want of affidavit and thus could not have been entertained by the trial Court. Mr. Sawant submitted that the Court was misdirected by the defendants, by relying on unaffirmed statement in support of Notice of Motion. On this count, he seeks, to ‘recall’ the order dated 30 th January, 2021 passed in Notice of Motion No.1200 of 2021.

¶20

5 In consideration of the facts of the case and the

¶21

submissions advanced, leave granted to appellant-plaintiff, to move appropriate application, seeking ‘recall’ of the order dated 30 th June,

¶22

Shivgan 2/3

¶23

21-IA-3036-2022.odt

¶24

2021 passed in Notice of Motion No.1200 of 2021 on the grounds, as permissible in law. If such an application is moved, trial Court shall decide the same after hearing the parties and shall dispose of the same expeditiously.

¶25

6 That for the reasons stated above, Interim Application

¶26

does not survive and it is disposed of.

¶27

7 All contentions of the respective parties are expressly kept

¶28

open.

¶29

8 Reply filed by the respondents is taken on record.

¶30

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)

¶31

Shivgan 3/3

Allen Gerald Dsilva S/O Mr. John Baptist Dsilva v. Grace Augustine Pinto W/O Mr. Augustine Pinto and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Allen Gerald Dsilva S/O Mr. John Baptist Dsilva v. Grace Augustine Pinto W/O Mr. Augustine Pinto and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mrs Sicilly Varghese Kadamthottu Vs Shri Ramanlal Jayshankar Trivedi (Deceased)by Lr and Ors.

Ramesh Mahadu Mahajan Vs Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation

Maheshbhai Ganpatlal Rawal Vs Mr. Premji Nanji Dudha @ Gohil (Deceased) Thr. Lrs. Kiran Premiji Gohil and

The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division Vs Vitthal Chayappa Karoli and Ors.

Perveen Firoz Shaikh Vs the State of Maharashtra

The State of Maharashtra Thr. the Special Land Acquisiton Officer NO.2 Nashik and Anr. Vs Suresh Vishwanath Gaikwad