Dismissed

Mahesh Sinari v. Cecelia Afonso

Bombay HC3 Apr 2024WP/606/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay at Goa disposed of a writ petition on the respondent's undertaking. The petitioner seeks interlocutory relief due to unauthorized construction. The respondent undertook not to proceed without permission and to intimate the civil court. The petition for interim stay was dismissed on this basis.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of on respondent's undertaking not to construct without permission and to inform Civil Court. Trial Court directed to adhere to undertaking.

Mahesh Sinari Vs Cecelia Afonso — Property and Title | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

WP 606 of 2023

¶2

vinita

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.606 OF 2023

MAHESH SINARI

... PETITIONER

Versus

CECELIA AFONSO

... RESPONDENT

Mr Iftikhar Agha and Mr Utkarsh Sawant, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr Jatin Ramaiya, Advocate for the respondent.

¶12

CORAM:- BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED :- 3rd April, 2024

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Heard Mr I. Agha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr J. Ramaiya, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶15

Petition could be disposed of on the basis of affidavit cum undertaking given by the respondent today, it is taken on record and marked X for identification.

¶16

Proceedings before the trial Court are pending and there is a dispute with regard to construction activities carried out by the respondent.

¶17

While arguing the matter on an earlier date, it was pointed out that construction undertaken by the respondent is without any permission from the concerned authority. At this stage, it was submitted that the respondent will undertake not to carry out further construction in the suit property without obtaining permission from the

Page 1 of 2

3rd April, 2024

WP 606 of 2023

concerned authorities.

¶22

Today such undertaking is placed on record. However, Mr Ramaiya, learned counsel for the respondent, on instructions, further agrees that even after obtaining the permissions from the competent authorities, the respondent will intimate the Civil Court about it.

¶23

Such recourse to intimate the Civil Court is necessary for the purpose of facilitating the plaintiff/petitioner to take necessary recourse available in law.

¶24

With this undertaking, the petition filed by the petitioner could be disposed of.

¶25

The learned trial Court is directed to adhere to the undertaking given by the respondent during the pendency of the civil suit.

¶26

A copy of this undertaking shall be placed along with the order of this Court before the learned trial Court.

¶27

Parties to act on the duly authenticated copy of this order.

¶28

Petition stands disposed of in above terms.

¶29

BHARAT P. DESHPANDE, J.

¶30

VINITA VIKAS NAIK Digitally signed by VINITA VIKAS NAIK Date: 2024.04.03 16:45:29 +05'30'

¶31

Page 2 of 2

¶32

3rd April, 2024

Mahesh Sinari v. Cecelia Afonso

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahesh Sinari v. Cecelia Afonso

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

Vikas Vats Vs Dr. Dinesh Kumari Sharma Natural Guardian for Res. No. 2 and Anr.

Vikas Vats Vs Dr. Dinesh Kumari Sharma Natural Guardian for Res. No. 2 and Anr.

The Old Goa Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd, Thr. Recovery Officer Kajol a. Naik Vs Kishore Uttam Raut and Anr.

Fernando Coutinho Vs Fr. Tony Salema and Anr.

Stanly Fernandes Vs Cecilia Fernandes and Anr.

The Project Director and Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (Rd), and Anr. Vs Francisco Nicolau Fernandes