Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: S.J.No.74 of 2018 in Suit No.4840 of 2009
in
H.C.S.J.No.30 of 2010 in H.C.Suit No.28862009
1
MHCC010028762018
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
S.J.No.74 of 2018 in Suit No.4840 of 2009
in
H.C.S.J.No.30 of 2010 in H.C.Suit No.28862009
1. Dilshad Inamulla Khan,
aged 45 years, Occ.Doctor,
residing at B.L.H. 116
Varsha Adarsh Nagar,
Opposite Kurla Railway Station
Kurla(E), Mumbai400 024 .. Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.Naseem Bano Irfan Ahmed Ansari
aged 40 years, Occ.Household
Behind Building No.9,
Railway Line Jhopad Patti (Slum)
Rajiv Gandhi Nagar,
Nehru Nagar, Kurla(E),
Mumbai400 024
2. M.G.Pisal
age 45 years, Occ.Builder
M.M.Builders, Jagruti Nagar,
Near Railway Station,
Kurla(E), Mumbai 400 024 ...Defendants
Appearance:
Advocate A.A.Maniyar for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
-- 1 of 5 --
S.J.No.74 of 2018 in Suit No.4840 of 2009
in
H.C.S.J.No.30 of 2010 in H.C.Suit No.28862009
2
CORAM : H.H.J.SHRI.A.V.Kharkar
DATE: 29th June, 2022 C.R.NO.15
SUMMONS FOR JUDGMENT
Heard Counsel for plaintiff. Perused Summons for
Judgment and reply filed by defendant. Matter is pending since
year 2009 and taken up for order.
The factual matrix is as follows:
2. The plaintiff is that Dr. by profession and he was on look
out for premises for starting his clinic in Kurla area. in Kurla
area. Defendant no.1 is ready and willing to sell her flat.
Consideration was fixed of Rs.9,25,000/. Out of said amount,
the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.1,00,000/. Subsequently, plaintiff
came to know that the said building which is under construction
is being developed under the scheme of Slum Rehabilitation
Authority. There is an embargo of sale transaction. The
beneficiaries under the scheme cannot alienate their premises
for period of 10 years. Since the plaintiff realized that he could
not get premises of lawful transfer in his name, he cancelled the
transaction and demanded amount of Rs.1,00,000/ paid as
earnest money.
3. The mainstay of the reply Summons for Judgment that the
plaintiff is engaged in the business of purchasing SRA premises
at lower rate and thereafter selling it higher rate. The defendant
has admitted transaction to defendant no.1 according to her the
plaintiff knowingly entered into transaction. However, without
any reason he has retracted his promised to pay balance
-- 2 of 5 --
S.J.No.74 of 2018 in Suit No.4840 of 2009
in
H.C.S.J.No.30 of 2010 in H.C.Suit No.28862009
3
consideration and hence, earnest money stands forfeited.
4. In this case there is triable issue as to whether there is
valid transaction between the plaintiff and defendant no.1.
Whether the amount of Rs.1,00,000/ paid to the defendant
no.1 was forfeited. Since there is triable issue in the matter.
Leave to defend needs to be granted unconditionally. Hence,
following order is passed.
ORDER
1. Leave is granted to defend the suit unconditionally.
2. Summons for Judgment No.74 of 2018 stands disposed of
accordingly.
Date : 29/06/2022 (A.V.Kharkar)
Assistant Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court
Gr.Bombay
Dictated on : 29/06/2022
Transcribed on : 30/06/2022
HHJ Signed on :
-- 3 of 5 --
S.J.No.74 of 2018 in Suit No.4840 of 2009
in
H.C.S.J.No.30 of 2010 in H.C.Suit No.28862009
4
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
30/06/2022 3.00pm (Mrs.P. P. Khanvilkar)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
SHRI A.V.Kharkar
(C.R. No.15)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
29/06/2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
30/06/2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 30/06/2022
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
-- 4 of 5 --
S.J.No.74 of 2018 in Suit No.4840 of 2009
in
H.C.S.J.No.30 of 2010 in H.C.Suit No.28862009
5
28/06/2022 3.00pm (Mrs.P. P. Khanvilkar)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
SHRI A.V.Kharkar
(C.R. No.15)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
13/06/2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
28/06/2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 28/06/2022
-- 5 of 5 --