Disposed

Murarikrishna Chunilal Joshi v. Shidojirao Anandrao Desai-Nipanikar and Ors.

Bombay HC16 Jun 2023WP/3022/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this specific performance dispute, the petitioner challenged the rejection of a temporary injunction application. The court held that since construction was completed with an Occupancy Certificate, deciding merits serves no purpose unless the petitioner agrees to the altered property state.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Petition is disposed of without deciding the merits, noting the petitioner's willingness to take possession of the altered construction.

Murarikrishna Chunilal Joshi Vs Shidojirao Anandrao… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Rane 1/2 4-WP-3022-2017.doc 16 June 2023.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 3022 OF 2017

¶4

Murarikrishna Chunilal Joshi V/S Shidojirao Anandrao DesaiNipanikar and Ors.

¶5

....Petitioner

¶6

....Respondents

¶7

Mr. Kush M. Lahankar i/by. Shrikrishna R. Ganbavale, for the Petitioner. Mr. Rahul P. Walvekar , for the Respondents.

¶8

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶9

DATE : 16 JUNE 2023.

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

In this petition, petitioner challenges judgment and order dated 15 October 2016 by the District Judge-3, Kolhapur in Misc. Civil Appeal No.40/2016 by which the order passed by the trial Court on 8 December 2015 rejecting application for temporary injunction has been confirmed.

¶12

The suit is filed by the Plaintiff seeking specific performance of the Agreement of Sale dated 31 December 2014. In his Suit, plaintiff filed application for temporary injunction to restrain the Defendants from carrying out construction in contravention of the Agreement of

¶13

1/2

¶14

Rane 2/2 4-WP-3022-2017.doc 16 June 2023.

¶15

Sale dated 31 December 2014. Petitioner was declined temporary injunction by the trial Court on 8 December 2015. Petitioner’s appeal also came to be rejected by the District Court on 15 October 2016. In short, there has been no temporary injunction in favour of the Plantiff since filing of the suit in the year 2015.

¶16

The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent would contend that on account of non-grant of any temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs, Defendants have carried out the construction and have completed the same. It is further submitted that the Planning Authority has already granted Occupancy Certificate in respect of the completed construction.

¶17

In that view of the matter, no purpose would be served by deciding the merits of the contentions raised in the present Appeal. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the PetitionerPlaintiff is willing to take possession of the altered nature of the suit property alongwith the construction thereon. This is something which would be decided by the trial Court and no opinion is expressed on the same. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed off.

¶18

(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)

¶19

2/2

Murarikrishna Chunilal Joshi v. Shidojirao Anandrao Desai-Nipanikar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Murarikrishna Chunilal Joshi v. Shidojirao Anandrao Desai-Nipanikar and 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

The Bombay Education Society Thr. Chairman Mr. R. K. White and Ors. vs Sandeep Vasant Sathe and Ors.

Racing Promotions Pvt. Ltd. vs Roadway Solutions India Pvt. Ltd.

Ravi Raghunath Khanjode and 23 Ors. vs Harasiddh Corporation

Jagannath Vasant Deshpande Vs City and Industries Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited (Cidco) and Anr.

Shri. Bharat Sukhdeo Baunde Vs Smt. Sarubai Alias Saraswati Sukhdeo Daunde and Anr.

Bhimrao Anant Sutar Vs Shivaji Sripati Kshirsagar and Ors.