Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI
MHCC010004772020
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 190 OF 2020
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 102 OF 2020
1.
2.
3.
4.
Kalpesh Babulal Jain
Babulal Ganeshmal Jain
Niteshkumar Babulal Choudhary alias Jain
Nilesh Babulal Choudhary alias Jain
All adults, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
residing at Flat No.3, 1st floor, Lamina Apartment,
Lamina Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.,
Naushir Bharucha Marg,
Grant Road, Mumbai 400 007.
... Plaintiffs
Versus
Gopal Ambalal Soni
Age 33 years, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
having office at Amrut Plaza, Office No.704,
7th floor, Jambli Naka, Near Thane Station,
Thane West, Thane 400 603. ... Defendants
AND
-- 1 of 20 --
2 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
MHCC010039772022
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1359 OF 2022
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 102 OF 2020
Gopal Ambalal Soni
age 38 years, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
residing at Amrut Plaza, Office No.704,
7th floor, Jambli Naka, Near Thane Station. ...
Applicant
(Original
Defendant)
Versus
1.
2.
3.
4.
Kalpesh Babulal Jain
aged 32 years,
Babulal Ganeshmal Jain
aged 62 years,
Niteshkumar Babulal Choudhary alias Jain
aged 38 years,
Nilesh Babulal Choudhary alias Jain
aged 28 years,
all adults, Indian Inhabitant of Mumbai,
residing at Flat No.3, 1st floor, Lamina Apartment,
Lamina Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.,
Naushir Bharucha Marg,
Grant Road, Mumbai 400 007.
... Respondent
Appearances:-
Ld. Advocate Shri Niranjan Bhadang I/b Dharma & Co. for the plaintiffs
Ld. Advocate Ms. Eventa Gonsalves for the defendant.
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
RAJESH A. SASNE
(Court Room no. 30)
DATE: 5th August, 2023
-- 2 of 20 --
3 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
C O M M O N O R D E R
The plaintiffs have taken out Notice of Motion No.190 of
2020 for following reliefs:
a. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, this Hon’ble Court be
pleased to pass an order and injunction restraining the defendant, his
agents, servants and persons claiming through or under him from
entering upon, if entered then remaining upon, interfering in, disturbing
in any manner whatsoever the use, enjoyment, occupation and
possession of plaintiffs in respect of the Suit flat i.e. Flat No.3, 1st floor,
Lamina Apartment, Lamina Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Naushir
Bharucha Marg, Grant road, Mumbai 400 007.
b. Interim and ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) above.
c. Costs of the Notice of Motion be provided for.
d. For such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and
proper in the nature and circumstances of the above Notice of Motion.
2. Notice of Motion No.1359 of 2022 is taken out by the
defendant for following reliefs :
a. The Plaintiffs jointly and / or severally be ordered and directed to
deposit in this Hon’ble Court the balance consideration of
Rs.1,00,00,000/-
b. That the Court Receiver of this Hon’ble Court be appointed as Receiver
of the Suit Flat viz. Flat No.3, 1st floor, Lamina Apartment, Lamina Co-
Operative Housing Society Ltd., Naushir Bharucha Marg, Grant Road,
Mumbai 400 007.
c. The Plaintiffs jointly and / or severally be restrained by the order and
injunction of this Hon’ble Court, from transferring, selling, or creating
third party rights or inducting any third party in the suit flat, or any part
thereof in respect of the Suit Flat viz. Flat No.3, 1st floor, Lamina
Apartment, Lamina Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Naushir
-- 3 of 20 --
4 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
Bharucha Marg, Grant Road, Mumbai 400 007;
d. For ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) above;
e. For costs of the Notice of Motion.
f. For such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of the
case be granted.
In brief facts giving rise to filing of these motions are as follows :
3. Flat No.3, first floor, Lamina Apartment, Lamina Co-
operative Hsg. Soc. Ltd., Plot No.7049, Naushir Bharucha Marg, Grant
Road, Mumbai 400 007 is the “suit flat”. By agreement for sale dated
01.11.2019, the defendant sold and transferred the suit flat for
consideration of Rs.1,45,00,000/- to the plaintiffs. The defendant
simultaneously with execution of the said agreement, handed over
possession of the suit flat to the plaintiffs. It is further case of the
plaintiffs, that out of total amount of consideration Rs.1,45,00,000/-,
Rs. 45,00,000/- were paid and remaining amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-
was to be paid by obtaining bank loan from Bank of India. After taking
possession by letter dated 07.11.2019 the plaintiffs have sought
permission of Lamina Society for repairs and renovation of the suit flat.
Accordingly, from, 07.11.2019 they have commenced the repairs and
renovation works.
4. It is further case of the plaintiffs that on 16.12.2019 the
Bank of India by its letter informed to the plaintiffs that their loan
proposal has been rejected due to existing charge of Dena Bank ( Now
Bank of Baroda) in the name of M/s Adharsh Metals. The plaintiffs
informed this fact to the defendant. According to the plaintiffs there
upon the defendant threatened the plaintiffs stating that they will have
-- 4 of 20 --
5 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
to pay the balance amount of Rs.1 Crore irrespective of charge on the
suit flat. The plaintiffs have filed police complaint about said threats
and apprehension of dispossession. They also wrote a letter to the
defendant informing about said charge of Dena Bank and requested not
to dispossess the plaintiffs. According to the plaintiffs the defendant had
made representation that suit flat is free from encumbrances and he
shall indemnify the plaintiffs from any right, title, interest or claim of
any person in respect of the suit flat. According to the plaintiffs the
defendant is under obligation to deliver clear and marketable title of the
suit flat to the plaintiffs. It is their contention that they are ready and
willing to pay balance amount of consideration, subject to the
defendant making the suit flat free from encumbrances. With the
apprehension of dispossession the plaintiffs have filed this suit for
injunction and therein by this notice of motion have prayed for interim
injunction.
5. The defendant has opposed this motion with his contention
made in the written statement and reply. It is the case of the defendant
that the plaintiffs have taken forcible possession of the suit flat after
breaking open the lock and thereafter filed this suit. They want to usurp
the suit flat without making payment of balance amount of
consideration Rs.1 Crore. The plaintiffs have not prayed any substantive
reliefs. The plaintiffs have availed time and opportunity for inquiry
regarding title of the suit flat. The plaintiffs by letter dated 14.12.2019
of the Bank of India about sanction of loan tried to convince the
defendant that they have made provision for payment of balance
amount of consideration. On that assurance the defendant signed the
agreement for sale dated 01.11.2019. All payments were to be made
-- 5 of 20 --
6 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
before 31.10.2019 but as the plaintiffs were not able to procure the
home loan, they have requested for an extension of time till 15.12.2019
which the defendant agreed to grant. Sale would be completed only
after payment of balance consideration of Rs.1 Crore.
6. It is further contention of the defendant that the agreement
to sale does not provide that possession has been handed over. Whereas
it is stated therein that the defendant is in possession of the suit flat.
Possession was to be handed over at the time of payment of full amount
of consideration. The plaintiffs have failed to pay balance amount of
Rs.1 Crore on or before 15.12.2019. Therefore, the defendant by his
letter dated 17.12.2019 has cancelled the agreement dated 01.11.2019.
In their reply dated 18.12.2019 the plaintiffs for the first time took up
false contention that the bank has informed about charge on the suit
flat. The defendant denied that he handed over possession of the suit
flat to the plaintiffs. The alleged charge of Dena Bank which is alleged
to have been created on 16.03.1995 was not registered with the Lamina
Society. According to the defendant the suit flat is free from all
encumbrances. If the plaintiffs had found the defendant’s title is
doubtful, they had right to terminate the agreement or if want to
continue they have right to seek specific performance by showing ready
and willingness to pay balance amount of consideration. According to
defendant the plaintiffs have adopted a rank illegal and dishonest
conduct of taking forcible possession. The defendant has terminated the
agreement for non payment of balance amount. He is not bound to
make payment of any amount of alleged charge of Dena Bank. There is
no such demand from the said bank. The contention about said charge
is false. The defendant also disputed about the valuation of suit. With
-- 6 of 20 --
7 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
these contentions the defendant requested to reject the notice of motion
filed by the plaintiffs.
7. The defendants by filing notice of motion No.1359 of 2022
based on the aforesaid facts of the case stating that the plaintiffs have
wrongfully withheld the balance consideration of the Rs.1 Crore,
requested the court to direct the plaintiffs to deposit the amount of Rs.1
Crore in the court. He also prayed for appointment of receiver and for
interim relief of injunction to restrain the plaintiffs from creating third
party interest in the suit flat or from parting with the possession thereof.
8. The plaintiffs based on the aforesaid facts of the case
resisted said motion and raised objection that the defendant has not
filed suit for recovery of balance amount of consideration. According to
them due to false representation made by the defendant, he is not
entitled for the relief claimed. It is their contention that after removal of
charge of Dena Bank on the suit flat, the plaintiffs will pay the balance
amount of consideration. According to them the apprehension for relief
of injunction is baseless and imaginary and motion is liable to be
rejected. According to them the original share certificate of the suit flat
was given to Dena Bank and by suppressing this fact duplicate share
certificate was obtained. The share certificate has been transferred in
the name of plaintiffs and the defendant is not entitled for the reliefs
prayed.
9. Heard the Ld advocates for the respective parties. After
going through the contention in the plaint, written statement, notice of
motion, reply and rejoinder, following points arise for my consideration,
-- 7 of 20 --
8 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
to which I record my findings thereon with reasons as follows.
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether there is prima facie case in
favour of the plaintiffs ? No
2. In whose favour balance of convenience
lies ? The Defendant
3. To whom irreparable loss will be caused ? To the defendant
4. Whether the defendant prima facie
proves substance in his contention
regarding his apprehension about
creation of third party interest or
apprehension of parting with the
possession of the suit flat?
Yes
5. Whether the defendant satisfy that the
plaintiffs are liable to deposit balance
amount of consideration Rs.1 Crore in the
court ?
No
6 Whether case is made out for
appointment of Court Receiver ? No
7 What order ? N.M. 190 of 2020 is
Dismissed and N.M
1359 of 22 is partly
allowed.
REASONS
AS TO POINT Nos.1 TO 6:
10. All these points are inter linked with each others, hence to
avoid repetition of findings they are taken together for consideration.
Following are the admitted facts:
(A) Agreement for sale in respect of the suit flat has been executed
between the parties on 01.11.2019.
-- 8 of 20 --
9 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
(B) The plaintiffs are in physical possession of the suit flat.
(C) Total amount of consideration for sale of the flat was
Rs.1,45,00,000/-
(D) Out of total amount of consideration, amount of Rs.45,00,000/- is
paid by the plaintiffs to the defendant and Rs.1 Crore is the
outstanding amount.
11. Admittedly, for the sale of the suit flat the plaintiffs and
defendant have entered into an agreement for sale on 01.11.2019.
According to the plaintiffs simultaneously with the execution of
agreement, the defendant also handed over possession of the suit flat to
the plaintiffs. The defendant has disputed this fact and alleges that the
plaintiffs by breaking open the lock of the suit flat took forcible
possession of the suit flat. The plaintiffs by his notice of motion praying
for interim relief of injunction restraining his dispossession at the hands
of defendant. Therefore, it is required to verify whether the plaintiffs’
possession is supported by law as lawful possession.
12. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Agnigundala Venkata Ranga
Rao Vs. Indukuru Ramchandra Reddy (MANU/SC/0420/2017, AIR
2017 SC 2042) held as follows :
“it is settled principle of law that in order to claim
prohibitory (temporary or permanent) injunction, it is
necessary for the plaintiff to prima facie prove apart
from establishing other two ingredients, namely,
irreparable loss and injury that his possession over the
suit land is “legal”.
-- 9 of 20 --
10 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
13. Therefore, for claiming interim injunction the plaintiff has
to satisfy that his possession is lawful. To ascertain the legality of
possession of the plaintiffs it is required to verify the facts on the basis
of the circumstances on record and the terms of contract executed
between the parties.
14. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after execution of
agreement to sell dated 01.11.2019 simultaneously the defendant
handed over the possession of suit flat to them. The very fact is denied
by the defendant. To support this contention the plaintiffs have further
stated that on 07.11.2019 they sought permission from Lamina Society
to carry out repairs and to renovate the suit flat. No such document is
produced on record to support this contention. The plaintiffs relied on
the letter cum certificate of their interior decorator at Exh.“E” wherein it
is stated that their client i.e the plaintiffs have started work on
07.11.2019 and said interior decorator have visited the site then. It is
mere statement and not proving the fact that on 01.11.2019 the
defendant handed over the possession of the suit flat to the plaintiffs.
15. The plaintiffs also relied upon the photographs showing
renovation work going on at suit flat. This may prove that the suit flat is
in possession of the plaintiff but may not prove that the defendant
handed over it to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also relied on the copies of
letter addressed to the police station on 16.12.2019 and copy of letter
received from Bank of India informing about rejection of loan proposal
on 16.12.2019. These letters also do not prove the fact that the
defendant handed over the possession of the suit flat to the plaintiffs.
Therefore, for the purpose of legal handing over of possession by the
-- 10 of 20 --
11 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
defendant to the plaintiffs the material document is the agreement to
sale dated 01.11.2019 (Exh.B) because this is the document which will
show what was the intention of the parties for their actions in view of
the agreement executed by them.
16. First of all it is required to be noted that the contract
executed in respect of suit flat is not the sale deed but the agreement to
sale. The contentions in clause No.2 of the agreement reads that the
transferor(defendant) shall sale and the transferee (Plaintiffs) shall
purchase the premises. Clause No.5 reads that sale shall be completed
on or before 15.12.2019 against the payment of balance consideration
amount of Rs.1 Crore by transferees to the transferor. Therefore, this
contract was not the sale but the agreement for sale. Therefore the title
is not yet created.
17. It is required to see what was the intention of the parties in
respect of possession to be handed over to the plaintiffs. Clause Nos.6
and 8(e) of the said agreement reads as follows:
6. Simultaneously upon receipt of the full consideration as
stated in clause No.3 above and on completion of the sale, the
Transferor shall deliver quite, vacant and peaceful possession of
said flat to the Transferees as Owners thereof alongwith said
original share certificate in respect of the said shares and other
relevant original title deeds in respect of said flat.
8(e) That on completion of this transaction, the transferees shall
be entitled to enjoy the said flat premises without any claim or
interruption from the transferor or anybody claiming under from
through, or with the transferor.
-- 11 of 20 --
12 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
18. Therefore, it was agreed and binding on the parties to
handover or to receive the possession on payment of full and final
amount of consideration and on completion of sale. As per clause no.5
of the agreement the sale was agreed to be completed on or before
15.12.2019, therefore, it appears that the agreed date for transfer of
possession was 15.12.2019 i.e. at the time of sale and not on the date of
agreement itself. Therefore, the agreement and its clauses does not
support the plaintiffs case that on the date of agreement for sale dated
01.11.2019 the defendant by execution of this agreement
simultaneously handed over the possession of the suit flat to the
plaintiffs. There is no other document to show that the agreed terms in
respect of handing over possession are varied or changed by the parties.
There is no receipt of possession to show that possession was handed
over by the defendant to the plaintiffs.
19. In common course of transactions generally in such cases of
sale of immovable properties, the handing over possession of the
immovable property takes place simultaneously with final payment of
remaining amount of consideration. In case before me facts of handing
over possession pleaded by the plaintiffs are strange and exceptional to
the general course of transactions. It is not possible to accept that the
person will hand over the possession of property worth of Rs.1.45
Crores to a purchaser on receiving part amount of consideration Rs.45
Lakhs only and that too by deducting TDS of Rs.1.45 lakhs. It is not
probable that when amount of Rs.1 Crore is yet to be received and final
sale deed which was proposed to be executed on 16.12.2019, the
defendant will hand over the possession of suit flat to the plaintiffs
without any assurance or security. Therefore, I am unable to accept the
-- 12 of 20 --
13 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
plaintiffs contention that the defendant himself handed over the
possession of the suit flat to the plaintiffs. Therefore, in my view though
the plaintiffs are in factual possession of the suit flat, the possession is
not supported by contract to consider it as lawful. Even the basis on
which the legality of possession is claimed, that agreement to sale does
not support the fact of lawfulness of possession.
20. The plaintiffs have filed this suit only for injunction. No
substantive relief of declaration or even specific performance is prayed.
Even on final adjudication of this suit the final relief will be at the most
for protection of possession and not for execution of agreement and
specific performance of contract. From the pleadings in the plaint it
appears that plaintiffs’ case is based upon the agreement to sale dated
01.11.2019. They pleaded that they are ready to pay the balance
amount of consideration Rs.1 Crore subject to condition that the
defendant shall clear the title of the suit flat. According to them the
defendant has denied to do so and threatened them to dispossess.
Under these circumstances, the plaintiffs at the most if want to continue
with the contract should have sought relief of specific performance. If
they are not willing to proceed with the contract as the suit flat is not
free from encumbrances, they should have rescind the contract. No such
reliefs are sought by the plaintiffs. From their pleading it appears that
they want the contract shall be specifically performed but they have not
sought such relief in this suit. Even if the suit proceeds for final relief
the dispute will not be resolved. For the purpose of injunction which is
prayed as perpetual injunction the legal status of the parties is required
to be decided. As aforesaid final sale deed is not yet executed. Title if
any is not passed completely from the plaintiffs to the defendant. Under
-- 13 of 20 --
14 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
these circumstances, the plaintiffs were required to sought relief of
specific performance which they have failed to sought. In absence of
substantive reliefs they are not entitled for relief of mere injunction.
21. The plaintiffs claim that they received possession, though
balance amount of consideration Rs.1 crore is due from them. Their
case is that they started renovation of flat on 7.11.2019 and on
16.12.2019 came to know about rejection of their loan proposal due to
charge on the property. Photographs show that they have undertaken
renovation of walls, flooring, ceiling of the entire flat pending the final
execution of sale and payment of balance amount of Rs.1 crore. From
the facts it appears that the plaintiffs mere want to hold possession,
without seeking relief of specific performance or cancellation of
contract. It is nothing but taking disadvantage of the fact of alleged
charge on the suit flat. It shows that claim of the plaintiffs is not with
clean hands.
22. The clause No.10 of the Contract provides provision to
indemnify to the plaintiffs, in case of defect in title. Clause Nos 15 and
16 of the Contract reads as follows:
15. In the event of sale not being completed due to any willful
default in the part of Transferees, the Transferor shall have right
to require specific performance of this agreement by the
Transferees or alternatively to refund the earnest money paid as
and by way of mutually agreed liquidated damages. However
the Transferor shall not be entitled to forfeit the earnest amount
as provided above unless he shall first give written notice of 14
days to the Transferees requiring them to complete the
transaction.
-- 14 of 20 --
15 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
16) In the event of sale not being completed due to any willful
default on the part of Transferor, the Transferees shall have right
to require specific performance of this Agreement by the
Transferor.
23. Therefore, by reading clause Nos.15 and 16 adequate
protection is available to the respective parties to claim their rights
under the contract. It is also noticed that before entering into the
contract for sale, the plaintiffs have not issued any public notice or
carried out any search as to the title of the suit flat. No such document
is produced on record and therefore, plaintiffs have not taken care for
themselves to show their bonafides. In plaint para No.5 the plaintiffs
have pleaded that they are ready and willing to pay balance amount of
consideration but have not filed suit for specific performance therefore,
it appears that only on the basis of physical possession, the plaintiffs
wants to take benefit of the contract by obtaining order of injunction. In
such case, law will not support them for protection of possession. In
spite of defective title as pleaded by the plaintiffs, they are willing to
purchase the suit flat, they do not want to cancel the agreement but
wants to hold the possession without seeking relief of specific
performance. This itself shows that the conduct is not bonafide and the
intention is not with clean hands. Under these circumstances, the
possession is not in support and in accordance to the agreed terms of
contract, there is no supported document showing that the defendant
on the date of agreement handed over the possession, therefore, the
case put up by the plaintiffs is not bonafide and not with clean hands
then necessarily possession is not in accordance with law. In the result
-- 15 of 20 --
16 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
the plaintiffs are not entitled for interim relief to protect their
possession.
24. The plaintiffs have placed reliance on the judgment in
Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through L.R.
(2020)7 SSC 366. It is held therein that sale deed can be registered
even upon part payment of sale price. In facts before me it is a case of
agreement to sale. It is not the case that it was the sale deed with
condition of part payment of sale price. Therefore on the basis of
difference of facts judgment in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji
Bhanusali supra will not be helpful to the plaintiffs.
25. The plaintiffs further relied on judgment in Usha Arvind
Dongre Vs. Suresh Raghunath Kotwal (1990 Mh.L.J 306) wherein it is
held that in respect of share held in tenant Co-operative housing Society
only right to occupy a flat is flowing from ownership of share. For
transfer of shares, registration is not required. The Ld Advocate for the
plaintiffs tried to convince that the share certificate has been transferred
in favour of the plaintiffs and therefore, further execution of the sale is
not necessary. As aforesaid the parties have agreed to execute the sale
deed on full and final payment of the remaining part of consideration.
Therefore, full and final transfer is yet to be executed. Therefore this
judgment is not helpful to the plaintiffs.
26. As aforesaid the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of
interim injunction. If the interim injunction is granted in their favour it
will cause irreparable loss to the defendant. Balance of convenience is
in favour of the defendant. As the plaintiffs have not sought any relief
-- 16 of 20 --
17 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
for the specific performance, they are not entitled for reliefs of
injunction without praying for substantive relief.
27. So far as to the fact about the relief prayed by the
defendant is concerned, the plaintiffs are in physical possession of the
suit flat. The contract between them is not finally concluded. If any
third party interest is created, it will cause multiplicity of litigation.
Therefore, considering the facts on record, if the plaintiffs are
temporarily restrained from creating such third party interest or from
parting with the possession of the suit flat it will help to avoid
multiplicity of litigation. Hence, the defendant is entitled for interim
relief of injunction.
28. Reliance placed on judgment in Nanasaheb Sakharam
Bhalekar Vs. Dattu Dhondiba Bhalekar (1991 Mh.L.J 685) wherein it
is held that where the case is covered by Order XXXIV Rule 1(a) of the
CPC, the court has jurisdiction to grant injunction in favour of the
defendant. Order XXXIV Rule 1(a) of the CPC provides that where any
property in dispute in a suit, is in danger of being wasted, damaged or
alienated by any party to the suit, or wrongfully sold in execution of
decree, injunction can be granted. In case before me apprehension is
raised by the defendant that the plaintiff may create third party interest
or may alienate the suit property. Therefore, in view of ratio laid down
in Nanasaheb Bhalekar’s case (Supra) and considering the provision of
Order XXXIV Rule 1(a) of the CPC, the defendant is entitled for such
reliefs.
-- 17 of 20 --
18 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
29. So far as to the relief about issuance of direction to the
plaintiffs to deposit amount of Rs.1 Crore in the court is concerned, I
am of the view that the defendant has not prayed any kind of relief for
specific performance of contract. In the present suit at the most relief
for injunction will be considered and not relief for specific performance.
Therefore, no question will arise for directing the plaintiff to deposit the
amount of Rs.1 Crore as remaining part payment of consideration. In
absence of any final relief, no such interim direction can be granted.
Hence the defendant is not entitled for said relief.
30. The suit is for simplicitor injunction. Property is in physical
possession of the plaintiffs. No relief for specific performance or
cancellation of contract is claimed by either parties. Considering the
circumstances on record, the appointment of court receiver is not
necessary.
31. As aforesaid the plaintiffs for relief of injunction have no
prima facie case. Points as to balance of convenience and irreparable
loss are not in their favour. They are not entitled for relief of interim
injunction. The defendant is entitled for interim relief of injunction. No
direction to deposit the balance amount of consideration of Rs.1 Crore
can be granted against the plaintiffs. There is no requirement to appoint
Court Receiver. Hence, I answer point Nos. 1 to 6 accordingly.
AS TO POINT No.7 :
32. As aforesaid the plaintiffs are not entitled for interim relief
of injunction. The defendant is entitled for interim relief of injunction.
He is also not entitled for the relief of issuance of direction to the
-- 18 of 20 --
19 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
plaintiffs to deposit the balance amount of consideration of Rs.1 Crore.
Hence, Notice of motion No. 190/2020 is required to be dismissed and
Notice of Motion No. 1359/2022 is required to be partly allowed. In the
result in answer to point No.7, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.190/2020 is dismissed.
2. Notice of motion No.1359/2022 is partly allowed as
follows:
a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit, by
the order of interim injunction, the plaintiffs are
restrained from transferring, selling or creating third
party right, interest and from parting with the
possession of the suit flat i.e. Flat No.3, situated on
first floor, Lamina Apartment, Lamina CHS Ltd.,
Naushir Bharucha Marg, Grant Road, Mumbai 400
007.
b) Relief for issuance of direction against the plaintiffs to
deposit balance amount of consideration Rs.1 Crore
and relief seeking appointment of Court Receiver are
rejected.
3) Costs shall follow the event.
(RAJESH A. SASNE)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date : 05.08.2023 Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 05.08.2023
Typed on : 09.08.2023
Signed by HHJ on : 10.08.2023
-- 19 of 20 --
20 N/M 190/2020 and N/M 1359/2022 in S.C.Suit No.102/2020
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME :
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. Bhamini Hate
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. Rajesh A. Sasne
C.R.No.30
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
05.08.2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
10.08.2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
11.08.2023
-- 20 of 20 --