Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: ... 1 … Order in NM No.287 of 2019
MHCC010007242019 Presented on : 21.01.2019
Registered on : 21.01.2019
Decided on : 13.02.2025
Duration : 06 00 23
Years Months Days
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY, AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 287 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 3032 OF 2018
(CNR NO.MHCC010007242019)
1 Rajeshkumar Surendrakumar Mishra
Aged : 38 years, Occ : Business
R/at : B-803, Shree Swami Samartha
Bhuvan, Dr. R. P. Road,
Mulund (W), Mumbai 400 080. …. Plaintiff
Versus
1
2
3
4
5
6
Shri Dinesh Ramkinkar Dube
Aged : 61 years, Occ : Estate Agent
Shri Sunil Ramkinkar Dube
Aged : 56 years, Occ : Business
Shri Ramesh Ramkinkar Dube
Aged : 51 years, Occ : Business
All 1 to 3 are residing at Dube Estate
Powai Chowk, Mulund Colony,
Mulund (West), Mumbai 400 080.
Shri Sushil Dube
Aged : 45 years, Occ : Business
Shri Asay Sushil Dube
Aged : 21 years, Occ : Business
Shri Deepak Mishra
Aged : 25 years,
-- 1 of 5 --
... 2 … Order in NM No.287 of 2019
7
8
All 4 to 6 are doing business at Shop No.8,
Om Luggage, Jivram Bhavan, R.R.T road,
Mulund West, Mumbai 400 080.
Lalbihari Avadhnarayan Dube
Aged : 75 years, Occ : Business
Shri Rajesh Lalbihari Dube alias Kalu,
Aged : 74 years, Occ : Business
All 7 to 8 are doing business at
Saraswati Stationary, Shop No.5,
Mochi Building, N.S.B. Road,
Mulund (West), Mumbai 400 080.
Residing at Room No.10, 1st Floor,
Mochi Building, N.S.B. Road,
Mulund (West), Mumbai 400 080. …. Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR THE PRINCIPAL JUDGE,
SHRI A.SUBRAMANIAM
C.R.NO..
: 19
DATE : 13th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
Appearances :-
Ld. Adv. S. G. Shirsat for plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. S. R. Dubey for defendant No.1 to 6.
Ld. Adv. Kamal Choudhary for defendant No.7 and 8.
ORAL ORDER
1. By present Notice of Motion, the defendant is claiming injunction
restraining plaintiff from dispossessing or entering the property
or obstructing defendant No.7’s occupation of said premises.
2. It is contended that this defendant No.7 has initiated proceedings
against other defendants and hence suit was filed wherein
interim relief are granted. Plaintiff came to take forceful
possession and proceedings were initiated before Ld. Magistrate
Court and plaintiff are threatening of dispossession. False suit has
been filed. Threats have been given. Defendant No.7 is senior
-- 2 of 5 --
... 3 … Order in NM No.287 of 2019
citizen and suffering from various ailments. Hence, interim relief
be granted.
3. Said Notice of Motion is resisted by plaintiff by claiming similar
grounds that another suit is filed by plaintiff interse defendant. It
is plaintiff who are in occupation and photographs are also filed
in that regard. It is contended that false documents are prepared
and same have been cancelled. Considering same, it is plaintiffs
who are in occupation of premises and hence Notice of Motion be
dismissed.
4. Perused the Notice of Motion and reply. Heard both the sides.
Considered the submissions advanced. Following points arise for
my consideration and I answer the same as under for the reasons
stated hereinafter;
Sr.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether prima-facie case is made out
by the defendant No.7 ?
:: In the negative.
2. Whether balance of convenience lies
in favour of the defendant No.7 ?
:: In the negative.
3. Whether irreparable loss will be
suffered by defendant No.7 if the
prayers in Notice of Motion are
denied?
:: In the negative.
4. What order ? :: As per final order.
REASONS
As to Point No. 1 :
5. To claim such relief, it is necessary for defendant No.7 to establish
his occupation or possession by relevant documents, except
alleged document of agreement between defendants interse and
-- 3 of 5 --
... 4 … Order in NM No.287 of 2019
and order which is seen to be a consenting order, there is nothing
on record to show occupation of the defendant No.7 in said
premises. Defendant No.7 has to establsih on his own legs and
cannot take advantage of weakness of plaintiff. Considering these
circumstances, in absence of any document or record as regards
occupation of defendant No.7, defendant No.7 has prima-facie
failed to establish his occupation over said premises. Considering
this, I hold that defendant No.7 failed to establish prima-facie
case. Hence, I answer Point No.1 in the negative.
As to Points No.2 and 3 :
6. As defendant No.7 has failed to establish his possession and
occupation there is no irreparable loss to defendant No.7 so also
the balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of
defendant No.7. Hence, I pass following order.
O R D E R
1. Notice of Motion No.287 of 2019 in Suit No. 3032 of 2018 is
rejected and disposed off accordingly.
DATE : 13.02.2025 (A.SUBRAMANIAM)
PRINCIPAL JUDGE
CITY CIVIL COURT, MUMBAI.
(JO CODE MH01711).
Dictated and transcribed on : 13.02.2025
Checked and signed on : 21.02.2025
-- 4 of 5 --
... 5 … Order in NM No.287 of 2019
"CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER"
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
(Grade-III)
DATE : 21.02.2025 at 01.59 pm Mr. Mohit M. Patange
Name of the Judge (with Court no.) : SHRI A.SUBRAMANIAM. C.R.NO.19.
Date of pronouncement of judgment/order : 13.02.2025
Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on : 21.02.2025
Judgment/order uploaded on : 21.02.2025
-- 5 of 5 --