Date: 26-02-2020
Business: Advocate Ms. Poonam Kadam for Plaintiff present and sought extension of time to serve Notice of Motion and writ of summons upon Defendants through sheriff\''s office. O-Time extended till next date. Short service through sheriff\''s office allowed.
None present for Defendant.
Case is adjourned to 02/03/2020 for service/NM reply/hearing.
Next Purpose: SERVICE
Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2020
Date: 02-03-2020
Business: Plaintiff with advocate Mr. Manoj Jaiswal for Plaintiffs present and filed registered Notice of Motion no.890/2020 with affidavit in support, t.o.r. He also filed affidavit of service of Notice of Motion, t.o.r.
Defendant no.4 who is son of Defendant no.1 with advocate Mr. Redekar for Defendants present and requested to keep the matter back for filing vakalatnama.
K.B.
L.O. at 4.00 p.m.
Advocate for Plaintiff filed registered Notice of Motion no.849/2020 with affidavit in support, t.o.r.
Advocate for Defendants filed vakalatnama for all Defendants, t.o.r. In Notice of Motion no.849/20 Plaintiffs have claimed temporary injunction restraining Defendants for forcefully entering into suit premises and for restraining Defendants from dispossessing Plaintiff from suit premises without following due process of law. Later on Plaintiffs have filed Notice of Motion no.890/20 for restoring Plaintiffs possession over suit premises. In view of fling of Notice of Motion no.890/20, I find that Notice of Motion no.849/20 has become infructuous hence Notice of Motion no.849/20 stands disposed off.
Heard Plaintiff\''s advocate about ad interim relief claimed in NM no.890/20. Plaintiff advocate referred all the documents annexed to the plaint and submitted that Plaintiffs were dispossessed from suit premises on 21/02/2020 and it is necessary to restore Plaintiffs possession over suit premises. Plaintiffs advocate cited the case between Ramesh Devchand v. Jayantkumar Goverdhandas Madani and ors. reported in 1998 AIR (Gujrat) 120. Said judgment is in respect of restoration of possession of Plaintiffs by way of interim order.
Defendants advocate Mr. Redekar submitted that Plaintiffs were not possessing suit premises even prior to 21/02/2020 and Defendants were possessing it. It is pointed out that the annexture-II prepared by SRA shows that suit premises was allotted only to Defendant no.1 after re-development of the old property. Defendants advocate further submitted that Defendants are intending to file detailed reply in respect of Notice of Motion taken out by Plaintiffs. According to Defendants advocate the relief of restoration of possession of suit premises, if will be granted without pleadings in the plaint, it will amount to decree without pleadings and prayer to that effect. Hence, according to Defendants advocate, NM is necessary to be decided on merits after giving fair opportunity to Defendants to file their detailed reply.
Plaintiffs advocate submitted that annexture-II issued by SRA can not take away the rights of all the persons who are entitled to possess the redevelop property. Any how, after giving serious consideration, I find that no ad interim relief can be granted unless Defendants are given opportunity to file reply, however it is made clear that, as the relief of restoration of possession is sought by Plaintiff, Defendants should file their reply on next date without fail. Meanwhile, Defendants are directed to serve the copy of NM reply upon Plaintiffs in advance. Plaintiffs are directed to make the amendment in the plaint showing the exact date and time of their dispossession and the prayer for their restoration of possession over suit premises by way of interim relief. Plaintiffs may take out Chamber Summons for amendment even prior to next date so that such a Chamber Summons also can be decided on next date.
Case is adjourned to 11/03/2020 for NM reply.
Nature Of Disposal: DISMISSED
Disposal Date: 02-03-2020
