Girijadevi Damodar Prasad v. Ranjana Edwin Mendosa and Others

Bombay HC3 Feb 2025IA/1378/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Specific performance of agreement; refusal of ad-interim relief by City Civil Court; Appeal From Order (ST); interim restraint against creation of third party rights in suit property; notice returnable 17 March 2025; no stay of suit proceedings; defendants' affidavit in reply not filed; condonation of delay; Girijadevi Damodar Prasad vs Ranjana Edwin Mendosa and Others; Bombay High Court, Gauri Godse, J.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim direction that the respondents shall not create any third party rights in respect of the suit property during the pendency of the application; notice to respondents issued, returnable on 17th March 2025, with private service and service affidavit directed; suit proceedings expressly not stayed. ¶¶21

Girijadevi Damodar Prasad vs Ranjana Edwin Mendosa and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether interim protection restraining the respondents from creating third party rights in the suit property should be granted during the pendency of this application/appeal challenging the City Civil Court's refusal of ad-interim relief. +1 more

¶¶19

Court's answer

During the pendency of this application the respondents shall not create any third party rights in respect of the suit property.

¶¶24

Ratio / Principle

The interim order is expressly clarified as not constituting any stay of the suit; the City Civil Court shall proceed with the suit.

¶¶25

Key takeaways

Notice was ordered to be issued to the respondents along with a copy of the order, returnable on 17th March 2025; additionally, counsel for the appellants to serve the respondents by private service with a copy of the order and file a service affidavit before the next date.ratio¶¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Gauri Godse, J.), Interim Application No. 1378 of 2025 in Appeal From Order (ST) No. 36744 of 2024 (Girijadevi Damodar Prasad v. Ranjana Edwin Mendosa and Others), order dated 3rd February 2025: In an appeal challenging the City Civil Court's refusal of ad-interim relief in a suit for specific performance of an agreement (plaintiff having paid the entire consideration as per receipt annexed to the suit agreement), the Court issued notice to the respondents returnable on 17th March 2025 and, as an interim measure, restrained the respondents from creating any third party rights in the suit property during the pendency of the application. It was clarified that the order is not a stay of the suit, which the City Civil Court shall proceed with (next suit date 13th February 2025); counsel relied on paragraph 3 of the application for condonation of delay.

¶1

33-IA-1378-2025.docx

¶2

rrpillai

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1378 OF 2025 IN

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 36744 OF 2024

¶5

Girijadevi Damodar Prasad … Applicant/Appellant

¶6

Vs.

¶7

Ranjana Edwin Mendosa and Others … Respondents

¶8

Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w. Ms. Vilasani Subramanian, Mr. A. P. Singh i/b. M/s. A. P. Singh and Co. for for the Applicant/Appellant.

¶9

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

¶10

DATE : 3^rd FEBRUARY 2025

¶11

ORDER :

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal challenges order passed by the City Civil Court refusing to grant ad-interim relief.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant points out that in the suit for

¶14

specific performance of the agreement, the plaintiff has relied upon the payments made towards the entire consideration as is reflected in the receipt annexed to the suit agreement. He further submits that the next date in the City Civil Court is 13^th February 2025. He further

¶15

submits that till date the defendants have not filed any affidavit in

¶16

Digitally signed by RAJESHWARI RAJESHWARI RAMESH RAMESH PILLAI PILLAI Date: 2025.02.03 21:58:44 +0200

¶17

1/2

¶18

33-IA-1378-2025.docx

¶19

reply. He submits that there is an apprehension that the respondents might create third party rights in the suit properties which would cause prejudice to the appellant and would result into multiplicity of proceedings,

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant relies upon the reasons stated in paragraph 3 of the application for condonation of delay.

¶21

In view of the aforesaid, issue notice to respondents along with copy of this order. Notice is made returnable on 17^th March 2025.

¶22

In addition to court notice, learned counsel for the appellants to serve the respondents by private service along with copy of this order and file service affidavit before the next date.

¶23

During the pendency of this application the respondents shall

¶24

not create any third party rights in respect of the suit property.

¶25

It is clarified that this order should not be construed as any stay to the further proceeding of the suit. The City Civil Court shall proceed with the suit.

¶26

[GAURI GODSE, J.]

¶27

2/2

Girijadevi Damodar Prasad v. Ranjana Edwin Mendosa and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girijadevi Damodar Prasad v. Ranjana Edwin Mendosa and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jaishree Waman Parab L/H of Waman Pandurang Parab vs Deputy Collector (Enc and Rem) and Competent AUTHORITY-8

Anita Narinder Kishinchandai vs Arjun Dwarkadas Lalwani (Deceased No 1)

Rajashree Ganesh Shinde vs Ganesh Babruwan Shinde

Mr. Vivek Hanumant Mungekar vs Mrs. Kalpana Vivek Mungekar

Shreyas Purandar Hegde vs Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Another

Zenobia R. Poonawla (Nee Ginwalla) and Another vs Dr. Rustom Farhad Ginwalla and Others