Dismissed

Pagarav Chaitanya Kumar Patel v. Rajendra Saxena and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC10 Apr 2023APP/53/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court in civil appeal held that observations by the learned Single Judge were merely prima facie regarding appellant not being a bonafide purchaser. Appeal was ultimately dismissed as withdrawn by the appellant, with direction to prove case before Trial Court.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed as withdrawn. Parties to prove their case before the Trial Court.

Pagarav Chaitanya Kumar Patel Vs Rajendra… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

15-app-53-21.doc

¶2

1 / 2

¶3

Digitally signed by MEERA MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date:2023.04.11 11:06:56 +0530

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

APPEAL NO.53 OF 2021
IN

¶6

NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1531 OF 2016

¶7

Pagarav Chaitanya Kumar Patel….Appellant

¶8

 V/s.

¶9

Rajendra Saxena & Ors…Respondents

¶10

WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1207 OF 2020

¶11

IN

¶12

APPEAL NO.53 OF 2021

¶13

----

¶14

Mr. Dinesh Mishra a/w Ms Kajal Wadhwana for Appellant.
Ms Aparna Deokar i/b M. P. Vashi & Associates for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.

¶15

 ----

¶16

 CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &

¶17

 RAJESH S. PATIL JJ
 DATED : 10th APRIL 2023

¶18

P.C. :

¶19

1 After the appeal was argued for sometime, Mr. Mishra submitted that
the observation made by the Learned Single Judge that appellant is not a
bonafide purchaser, might hurt appellant during the hearing of the suit. Ms
Deokar submitted that any observation made in the order disposing an
interim application would certainly be a prima facie observation.

¶20

2We have to also note that in paragraph 37 the Learned Single Judge
has been careful to note that the aforesaid facts and circumstances prima
facie indicate that “defendant no.2 is not a bonafide purchaser for value
………… It prima facie appears that defendant nos.1 and 2 have entered

Meera Jadhav

15-app-53-21.doc

2 / 2

into agreement ………. and the object of which is prima facie unlawful,
would not prima facie confer any title or interest in favour of defendant
no.2.”

¶25

3Therefore, the Learned Single Judge has been careful to clarify the
observation as prima facie observation. Therefore, appeal dismissed as
withdrawn. It will be open to appellant to prove his case before the Trial
Court.

¶26

4 Consequently, interim application also stands disposed.

¶27

5 We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits of

¶28

the matter.

¶29

(RAJESH S PATIL, J.)(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶30

Meera Jadhav

Pagarav Chaitanya Kumar Patel v. Rajendra Saxena and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pagarav Chaitanya Kumar Patel v. Rajendra Saxena 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

Dhiraj Lakahamashi Shah and Anr. Vs Madhav Hari Karmakar and Anr.

Dhiraj Lakhamshi Shah and Anr. Vs Madhav Hari Karmarkra and 2 Ors.

Dr. Devchand Hemraj Gala and Ors. Vs Mrs. Salinderkaur Harminder Ratol and Ors.

Naman Madhav Patel Vs Jetu Jaques Taru Lalwania and 4 Ors.

Pagarav Chaitanya Kumar Patel Vs Rajendra Saxena and 2 Ors.

Naman Madhav Patel Vs Jetu Jaques Taru Lalwania and 4 Ors.