Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 1575-2019 in S.C.SU 942/2019 1 Date : 17.06.2025
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1575 OF 2019
IN
S.C. SUIT NO. 942 OF 2019
Gyanendrakumar Shivnath Prajapati and Anr. : … Plaintiffs
Vs.
Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and Ors. : … Defendants.
Appearances :-
Adv. Ravindra Singh h/f. Adv. Saraogi for plaintiff present.
None present for defendants.
CORAM : R. R. PATARE
JUDGE, (C.R.NO.08)
Heard on : 17.06.2025
Decided on : 17.06.2025
ORAL ORDER
(Dictated in open court)
1. From the pleadings and documents following points arises for
consideration and findings thereon are recorded as under:
Sr.
No.
Point Finding
1 Whether plaintiff has made out prima facie
case for grant of injunction order as prayed?
In the affirmative.
2 Whether balance of convenience lies in
favour of plaintiff?
In the affirmative.
3 Whether plaintiff suffer irreparable loss? In the affirmative.
4 What Order? As per final order.
Perused pleadings and heard advocate for the plaintiff. From the
documentary evidence more particularly registered agreement executed
in favour of plaintiff no.1 and 2 dated 06.08.2013 and 20.11.2014. The
copies of documents are not on record. The letter of Builder/Developer
-- 1 of 3 --
NM 1575-2019 in S.C.SU 942/2019 2 Date : 17.06.2025
address to Chairman/Secretory of defendant no.3 is brought on record
on behalf of plaintiff. The car parking list is annexed along with said
letter. It is seen that, cover parking no.11, A-wing is allotted to Flat
No.1204 and cover parking no.9, A-wing is allotted to Flat No. A-1402.
i.e. flats purchased by plaintiff no.1 and 2. There is prima facie evidence
to suggest that car parking is allotted to plaintiff no.1 and 2 by the
Builder. The plaintiffs alleges obstruction at the hands of defendants.
There is threat to the lawful possession of plaintiffs in respect of cover
parking allotted to them by the Developer. The plaintiffs will suffer
irreparable loss in case of refusal of order of injunction. The balance of
convenience lies in favour of plaintiffs. Defendants did not file reply. In
the result, there is no reason to discard the claim of plaintiffs. Hence,
following order is passed:-
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.1575 of 2019 is hereby allowed and
defendants are hereby restrained from causing obstruction and
interference in the use and possession plaintiffs to disputed car parking
allotted as per letter of Developer Exh.D till the final decision of suit.
2. Notice of Motion No.1575 of 2019 disposed off with no order as
to costs.
(R. R. PATARE)
Judge, City Civil Court,
Dt.:17/06/2025. Gr. Mumbai, (C.R.08)
Directly Dictated on : 17.06.2025
Signed on : 17.06.2025
-- 2 of 3 --
NM 1575-2019 in S.C.SU 942/2019 3 Date : 17.06.2025
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF CLERK-TYPIST
19/06/2025 At 14.02 PM Mr. V. L. Kulkarni.
Name of the Judge (With Court room
no.)
R. R. Patare (Court Room No.08)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
17/06/2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P. O.
on
17/06/2025
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 19/06/2025
-- 3 of 3 --