Abhijit Vishwas Phanse vs Sahyadri Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Abhijit Vishwas Phanse vs Sahyadri Sahakari Bank Ltd. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim application disposed of; the applicant is at liberty to prefer an appropriate application before the City Civil Court at Mumbai in the pending partition suit, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

Issue for consideration

Possession of the suit premises — whether any further order was called for, the applicant having conceded that the issue was already addressed by the Order in AO No. 554 of 2024 dated 14 December 2024. +1 more

Court's answer

The issue of possession of the suit premises stands addressed by the Order dated 14 December 2024; accordingly, nothing further was required on possession in this interim application.

Ratio / Principle

On the compensation issue, since the partition suit is pending before the City Civil Court, Mumbai, and there is no dispute regarding the compensation amount as mentioned in the Order dated 30 April 2024 in Civil Revision Application No. 223 of 2024, the applicant is at liberty to prefer an appropriate application before the City Civil Court at Mumbai.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Rajesh S. Patil, J.), by short order dated 30 April 2025, disposed of Interim Application No. 16114 of 2024 filed in the already-disposed Civil Revision Application No. 223 of 2024 (Abhijit Vishwas Phanse v. Sahyadri Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors.). The application concerned possession of the suit premises and the monthly compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- payable by the tenant-bank to the family under the order dated 30 April 2024, which recorded the minutes submitted by the parties and which the applicant had moved to set aside. On possession, the Court noted the issue already stood addressed by the Order dated 14 December 2024 in AO No. 554 of 2024. On compensation, observing that a partition suit filed by the applicant was pending before the City Civil Court, Mumbai, and that there was no dispute over the compensation amount recorded in the order dated 30 April 2024, the Court disposed of the application, granting the applicant liberty to prefer an appropriate application before the City Civil Court at Mumbai without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties.

901-ia-16114-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.16114 OF 2024 IN

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.223 OF 2024

Abhijit Vishwas Phanse ...Applicant Versus Sahyadri Sahakari Bank Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Parag Mishra a/w Niraj Tripathi, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. Harish Pawar a/w Rudra Kanekar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Kunal Bhanage a/w Akshay Pawar, Priyanka Acharya for Respondent Nos. 2(a) to 2(c) and 3.

CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J. DATED : APRIL 30, 2025

P.C.:

The learned advocate for the applicant submits that this interim application is filed in a disposed-of civil revision application, the issue raised is with regard to the possession of the suit premises and the compensation payable by the tenant (bank).

After hearing arguments, the applicant has agreed that, as regards the possession of the suit premises is concerned, the issue has already been addressed by Order passed in AO No. 554 of 2024 dated 14 December 2024.

as far as the issue of compensation payable, Mr. Bhangae, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the mother, brother, and sister of the present applicant, upon instructions, submits that the

1

Amol D. Nawale

901-ia-16114-2024.doc

compensation amount payable by the bank to the family is Rs.1,20,000/- per month, as per the order dated 30 April 2024.

The bank has not vacated the premises, since the present applicant filed an application to set aside the order dated 30 April 2024, which had recorded the minutes of the order submitted by the parties in the civil revision application.

It is submitted that, considering the present applicant-Abhijit Phanse is the son of Vishwas Pendse, he has ¼ share in the estate of Vishwas Phanse, he would at the most, be entitled to a 1/8 share from the monthly compensation of Rs.1,20,000/-, since 50% share is held by uncle of applicant.

It is further submitted that, as partition suit has already been filed by the applicant before the City Civil Court, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The applicant is at liberty to make an appropriate application in the said suit, where the present respondent can appear and make their submissions.

In view of the above, this interim application stands disposed of. The issue of possession has been addressed in Order dated 14 December 2024. As far as the compensation issue is concerned, since the partition suit is pending before the City Civil Court, Mumbai and there is no dispute regarding the compensation amount as mentioned in the Order

2

Amol D. Nawale

901-ia-16114-2024.doc

dated 30 April 2024 in Civil Revision Application No. 223 of 2024, the applicant is at liberty to prefer appropriate application before the City Civil Court at Mumbai.

(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)

3

Amol D. Nawale