Pankh Properties Private Limited vs Mrs. Yasmin Rustom… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2026)

Pankh Properties Private Limited vs Mrs. Yasmin Rustom… — Specific Performance | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Clause (2) of the impugned order dated 7 October 2025 modified: only Defendant No.1 (Respondent No.3) remains restrained from creating third-party interest in or selling/transferring the suit property till final disposal of SC Suit No. 971 of 2025; the restraint on Defendant No.2/Applicant (Pankh Properties Private Limited) is removed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim restraint in clause (2) of the impugned order dated 7 October 2025 should continue to operate against Defendant No.2 (the Applicant) when the Plaintiffs had sought injunctive relief against Defendant No.1 only.

Court's answer

The Revision Application stands allowed; clause (2) of the impugned order dated 7 October 2025 stands modified so that only Defendant No.1 is restrained from creating third-party interest in, or selling or transferring, the suit property till final disposal of the suit — the interim restraint on Defendant No.2 (the Applicant) is removed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (N. J. Jamadar, J.; decided 27 January 2026) — Civil Revision Application No. 40 of 2026, Pankh Properties Private Limited v. Yasmin Rustom Dursetji and Ors. The Revision Application challenged an order dated 7 October 2025 of the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, passed in Notice of Motion No. 2799 of 2025 in SC Suit No. 971 of 2025 (instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act), whereby Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were restrained from creating third-party interest in the suit property till final disposal of the suit. The Applicant (original Defendant No.2) contended the Plaintiffs had sought injunctive relief against Defendant No.1 only; counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (original Plaintiffs) conceded on instructions that they had no objection to restricting the injunction qua Defendant No.1. Allowing the Revision Application, the Court modified clause (2) of the impugned order so that only Defendant No.1 is restrained from creating third-party interest or selling or transferring the property till final disposal of the suit.

26-CRA-40-2026.DOC

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 40 OF 2026

Pankh Properties Private Limited ..Applicant Versus Yasmin Rustom Dursetji and Ors …Respondents

Mr. Nigel Quraishy, with Jahnavi Pandey and Namrata Kondavale, i/b Dhru & Co, for the Applicant.

Adv Riddhi Shah, i/b Sarosh Damania, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

CORAM: N. J. JAMADAR, J. DATE : 27^th JANUARY 2026

ORAL ORDER:

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

Digitally signed ARUNRAMCHANDRA by ARUNRAMCHANDRASANKPAL SANKPAL Date: 2026.01.30 21:47:53 +0530

The challenge in this Civil Revision Application is to an order dated 7^th October 2025 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, in Notice of Motion No. 2799 of 2025 whereby the learned Civil Judge has restrained the Applicant-original Defendant No.2 and Respondent No.3-original Defendant No.1, from creating any third party interest or selling or transferring the suit property till the final disposal of the SC Suit No. 971 of 2025, which is instituted under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act.

1/3

ARS

26-CRA-40-2026.DOC

In the said suit, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 took out a Notice of Motion to restrain the Defendants from selling, disposing, assigning or otherwise creating the third party rights in the subject property.

By the impugned order, the learned Judge has restrained Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 from creating third party interest in the suit property till the final disposal of the suit.

It is the contention of the Applicant-Defendant No.2, that the Plaintiffs were seeking the injunctive relief against Defendant No.1 only. Attention of the Court is invited to the averments in the Plaint and the prayers in the Notice of Motion, especially prayer clause (ii).

Ms. Shah, the learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the original Plaintiffs, on instructions, submits that the Plaintiffs were indeed seeking the injunctive relief of temporary injunction against Defendant No.1 only. The Plaintiffs have, thus, no objection to modify the impugned order so as to restrict the interim injunction qua Defendant No.1 only.

In view of the aforesaid submissions and the material on record, the Revision Application stands allowed and the clause (2) of the impugned order dated 7^th October 2025 stands modified to the effect that “only Defendant No.1 is thereby restrained from creating third party interest or selling or transferring the said property to anybody by any means till the final disposal of the Suit”.

2/3

ARS

26-CRA-40-2026.DOC

Application disposed.

[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]

3/3

ARS