Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/M 158/18 in Su 8414/2002 1/3 Date : 15.12.2018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, AT MUMBAI
CNR NO.:MHCC010005612018
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.158/2018
IN
SUIT NO. 8414/2002
Arun Manrakhan Singh ...Plaintiff
V/s.
Ajit Manrakhan Singh …Defendant
Adv. Yadav for plaintiff.
Adv. Tiwari for defendant no.2.
CORAM : HHJ Shri G. R. Agrawal
C. R. No.03
DATE : 15.12.2018
ORDER
(Dictated in open court)
By this notice of motion, the plaintiff is praying for direction to
Court Receiver to take possession of suit shop and to direct defendant
no.2 to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/ per month for the
illegal use of the shop.
2. Heard Ld. Counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
3. By order dated 3.5.2016, passed in notice of motion
no.2780/2015, this Court had appointed Court Receiver in suit shop
with directions to take possession thereof and to appoint defendant
no.2 as his agent for the period of one year with effect from the date of
execution of agency agreement and then the plaintiff for one year each
and continue the same rotation till further orders on execution of Agency
Agreement and on usual undertaking. The possession was given by
-- 1 of 3 --
N/M 158/18 in Su 8414/2002 2/3 Date : 15.12.2018
plaintiff to defendant no.2 on 7.11.2016. The grievance of plaintiff is
that the defendant no.2 did not hand over possession back to him after
period of one year as per the aforesaid order. Therefore he filed the
present notice of motion in January 2018. During the pendency of this
notice of motion, plaintiff has been given possession and therefore on
11.9.2018, this Court observed that prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the
present notice of motion do not survive. The plaintiff is now seeking
compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/ per month for the delay in
handing over possession.
4. The Ld. Counsel for defendant no.2 has submitted that the plaintiff
had also handed over the possession of shop after considerable delay to
the defendant no.2. Further, sister of defendant no.2 was not keeping
well therefore, defendant no.2 could not hand over the possession of suit
shop in time.
5. It is pertinent to mention here that in the aforesaid notice of
motion no. 2780/2015, defendant no.2 had also prayed compensation of
Rs. 20,000/ per month from the period commencing November 2014 till
the date of handing over the possession. This Court rejected the said
prayer on the ground that there is no material on record to show the
profit of the business in support of the claim of compensation. It is also
observed that the factum of compensation could be considered in trial of
the proceedings. Now the plaintiff is claiming same interim relief which
was refused to defendant no.2.
6. On hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and on perusing the
record, I find that the plaintiff is also not entitled for any compensation
at this stage for the same reasons which are given while rejecting the
prayer of defendant no.2 for compensation. Both parties need to follow
-- 2 of 3 --
N/M 158/18 in Su 8414/2002 3/3 Date : 15.12.2018
the directions of this Court given vide order dated 3.5.2016. The prayer
to pay compensation at the rate of Rs.20,000/ per month made by both
plaintiff and defendant no.2 can be decided at the time of final hearing
of the suit before discharging the Court receiver. Said prayer is not
tenable at this stage. Hence, following order.
ORDER
The notice of motion no.158/2018 is dismissed.
(G. R. Agrawal)
Judge
City Civil Court,
Date : 15.12.2018 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 15.12.2018
Transcribed : 18.12.2018
Signed on : 19.12.2018
“CERTIFIED TOBE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER”
20.12.2018 at 3.15 pm (Mrs. S. W. Tuscano)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court
room no.)
HHJ Shri G. R. Agrawal, C.R.
No.3
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
15.12.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
19.12.2018
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
20.12.2018
-- 3 of 3 --