Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: Daily Status
IN THE COURT OF :COURT 9 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
Case No. :NOTICE OF MOTION/0100849/2020
Mr. Ravindra Bajirao Bhosale S/o Bajirao Maruti Bhosale - Suit St. No. 2319/2020 Vs Mr. Balu Maruti Bhosale and Ors.
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&amp#039s 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
-- 1 of 2 --
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
-- 2 of 2 --