Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N. M. No.577/2019 Order
MHCC010014942019 Presented on : 07.02.2019
Registered on : 07.02.2019
Decided on : 10.12.2025
Duration : 06 10 03
Years Months Days
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT
BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.577/2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010014942019)
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO.1104/2018
Mrs. Maheshawri Karansingh Bhandari … Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Banwarilal H. Yadav … Defendant
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE, A. C. DAGA
: COURT ROOM NO. 61
DATE : 10.12.2025
Appearances: -
Adv. Noman Jafri for Plaintiff.
Adv. B. H. Goswami for Defendant.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
The instant Notice of Motion is filed by the Plaintiff for
praying grant of a temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from
disturbing the possession of the Plaintiff over the suit shop. It is pleaded
in the Notice of Motion that the suit shop is in exclusive possession of
the Plaintiff. There was a partnership between the parties. Same came
to an end and the accounts were settled. Still, the Defendant is trying to
give a threat. Trying to dispossess the Plaintiff from the suit shop and is
-- 1 of 5 --
N. M. No.577/2019 ... 2 … Order
demanding Rs.28,00,000/- being his share in the partnership business
and has given threat of the dispossession. Hence, the Notice of Motion.
2. Defendant has contested the Notice of Motion and has
adopted a Written Statement as his Reply to the Notice of Motion.
Defendant has admitted his partnership with the Plaintiff.
Defendant further pleaded that in the meeting, accounts were
settled and more than Rs.28,00,000/- is due from the Plaintiff,
which Plaintiff is not paying after getting the suit shop. There was
a fight between siblings. Consent terms between the family were
executed and have been signed by all. Defendant is entitled to get
Rs.28,00,000/- from Plaintiff. Thereafter, the Plaintiff forged the
Retirement Deed. Plaintiff is not in possession. Suit shop is
locked. Hence, prayed for dismissal.
3. Heard both sides. During the arguments, the Ld. Advocate
for the Plaintiff submitted that the Deed of Transfer was executed
on 19th April 2010. Thereafter, the Partnership Deed was executed
between the parties on 10th January 2011. On 16th June 2014, the
Deed of Retirement was executed by the Defendant in favour of
Plaintiff and the Defendant has retired. The Defendant has filed a
complaint. The same is pending. The Defendant is giving threat of
dispossession, though the ownership of the Plaintiff in the suit
shop is not disputed.
4. The Ld. Advocate for the Defendant, during arguments,
submitted that the Deed of Transfer was between the mother of
Plaintiff and Plaintiff. The business was going on. After the
Plaintiff got the suit shop, there was a fight between siblings.
-- 2 of 5 --
N. M. No.577/2019 ... 3 … Order
Then consent terms were executed between the family members.
In the settlement, the Plaintiff has agreed to pay Rs.28,00,000/-
to Defendant towards his share, but instead of giving the amount,
Plaintiff has forged the Retirement Deed. Hence, prayed for
rejection of the Notice of Motion. He has also submitted that the
Plaintiff is not holding possession of the suit shop and is locked.
5. I have carefully gone through the record. It appears that
there was a partnership between the Plaintiff and Defendant
which, as per Plaintiff, came to an end by the Retirement Deed
dated 16th June 2014. A copy of the Retirement Deed is filed on
record. It is the claim of the Defendant that said Retirement Deed
is of forged document. That will have to be proved by leading
appropriate evidence. At this juncture, the record goes to show
that there is a Retirement Deed executed by the Defendant in
favour of Plaintiff. Secondly, the document dated 15.12.2017 filed
by the Defendant vide (Exh.DB) if read into, goes to show that
the settlement took place between the parties and the Defendant
is entitled to get around Rs.28,00,000/- from the Plaintiff. Even
prima-facie, if this document is taken into consideration, then it
does not authorize Defendant to forcefully dispossess Plaintiff
from the suit shop in case Plaintiff is not borrowing the said
writing/undertaking. It is for the Defendant to follow the
procedure laid down in law.
6. As it appears that the Defendant has tried to dispossess the
Plaintiff from the suit shop. Therefore, the Plaintiff has made out
a prima-facie case. The balance of convenience lies in favour of
Plaintiff. Irreparable loss will be caused to the Plaintiff, in case
-- 3 of 5 --
N. M. No.577/2019 ... 4 … Order
the injunction as prayed is not granted. As such, I pass the
following Order: -
ORDER
1. Instant Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayer
Clause (a), till disposal of the suit.
2. Accordingly, Notice of Motion No.577/2019 stands disposed off.
DATE: - 10.12.2025 (A. C. DAGA)
JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR. MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 10.12.2025
Transcribed on : 10.12.2025
Checked on : 10.12.2025
Signed on : 10.12.2025
-- 4 of 5 --
N. M. No.577/2019 ... 5 … Order
"CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER"
DATE: 10.12.2025, AT 06.10 P. M. Siddhesh S. Shirke
STENOGRAPHER (GRADE-I)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court
no.)
: SHRI A. C. DAGA,
(C. R. NO. 61)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order : 10.12.2025
Judgment/Order signed by the P. O.
on : 10.12.2025
Judgment/Order uploaded on : 10.12.2025
-- 5 of 5 --