Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: ORDER ..1..
MHCC010008682019
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.345 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO.2638 OF 2018
Mohammed Rafique Mohammed Babula. … Plaintiff
Versus.
Salim Memon and another. … Defendants.
Appearance:
Adv. Khatri for plaintiff.
Adv. Amit Kumar Singh for defendant no.1.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
R.R.Patare
COURT NO.2
DATED : 25th August, 2022.
ORAL ORDER
Perused pleading and heard advocate for the parties.
2. I have recorded my findings from the pleading in this notice of
motion against each of them for the following reasons.
Sr.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether plaintiff has made out prima
facie case ? In the affirmative
2. Whether balance of conveyance lies in
favour of plaintiff? In the affirmative
-- 1 of 4 --
ORDER ..2..
3. Whether plaintiff will suffer irreparable
loss ? In the affirmative
4. What order and decree? As per final order.
R E A S O N S
POINTS NO.1 TO 3:-
3. Defendant no.2 is owner of suit premises. Defendant no.2 has
filed his defence statement. He contended that after service of summons
he learnt that defendant no.1 is not using the suit premises and
unlawfully parted the possession of suit premises in favour of plaintiff.
Defendant no.1 also admits the possession of plaintiff in the suit
premises. The documentary evidence on record i.e., copy of electricity
bill, electrician card shows that the plaintiff has taken electricity
connection at the address of suit premises. Plaintiff has produced on
record prima facie evidence to establish his possession in the suit
premises. Moreover, the defendants have not denied the possession of
plaintiff in the suit premises.
4. The next question for consideration is whether there is threat to
the lawful possession of plaintiff in the suit premises. Defendant no.1
and 2 have filed their written statement. From written statement, it is
seen that defendants are interested to deny the right of plaintiff in the
suit premises. Plaintiff has made positive statement in his affidavit
regarding obstructions caused on behalf of defendants. There is threat
to the lawful possession of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, on
failure the grant order of injunction plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss,
balance of conveyance is in favour of plaintiff. Plaintiff is entitled to
protect his possession until vacating by following due process of law. In
the result, point no.1 to 3 are answered in the affirmative and
following order is passed.
-- 2 of 4 --
ORDER ..3..
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 345 of 2019 is hereby allowed.
2. Defendant no.1 and 2 are hereby restrained from causing
obstruction in the lawful possession of plaintiff in the suit
premises specifically described in plaint para 1 till the decision
of suit.
3. No order as to costs.
(R.R.Patare)
Judge
City Civil Court, Gr.Mumbai
Date : 25.08.2022
Typed on : 25.08.2022
HHJ signed on : 25.08.2022
-- 3 of 4 --
ORDER ..4..
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
DATED 25.08.2022 , 5.30 p.m.
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME Mrs. V. N. Rajgole.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H.H.J. Shri. R.R.Patare
C.R.No.02
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
25.08.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
25.08.2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 25.08.2022
-- 4 of 4 --