The High Court of Bombay, in Appeal No. 53 of 2021, dismissed the appeal as withdrawn after the appellant accepted that observations regarding bona fide purchase made in the lower court were prima facie and would not hurt his case during the trial.
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The interim application was disposed.
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.
15-app-53-21.doc
1 / 2
Digitally signed by MEERA MEERA MAHESH MAHESH JADHAV JADHAV Date:2023.04.11 11:06:56 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO.53 OF 2021
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1531 OF 2016
Pagarav Chaitanya Kumar Patel….Appellant
V/s.
Rajendra Saxena & Ors…Respondents
WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1207 OF 2020
IN
APPEAL NO.53 OF 2021
----
Mr. Dinesh Mishra a/w Ms Kajal Wadhwana for Appellant.
Ms Aparna Deokar i/b M. P. Vashi & Associates for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
----
CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
RAJESH S. PATIL JJ
DATED : 10th APRIL 2023
P.C. :
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.
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.”
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withdrawn.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.
4 Consequently, interim application also stands disposed.5 We clarify that we have not made any observations on the merits ofthe matter.
(RAJESH S PATIL, J.)(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)
Meera Jadhav
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the appeal challenging the observation that the appellant is not a bonafide purchaser.
Pagarav Chaitanya Kumar Patel
Rajendra Saxena & Ors.
K.R. Shriram
Rajesh S. Patil
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court