Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 1743/19 in Suit No. 2853/18 1 Order.
MHCC010047672019
Presented on : 03-05-2019
Registered on : 03-05-2019
Decided on : 04-09-2025
Duration : 6 years, 4 months, 1 days
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1743 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 2853 OF 2018
Sejal Girish Parekh )...Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Earth Builders and others )...Defendants
Shri K.N.Kandekar, Advocate for the plaintiff.
Shri Shubro Dey, Advocate for the defendants no.1 to 3.
Shri B.S.Nayak, Advocate for defendants no.4 and 5.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI P.G.BHOSALE.
(COURT ROOM NO.62).
DATE : 4th SEPTEMBER, 2025.
ORDER
1. The plaintiff has filed this notice of motion to restore the
earlier order of ad-interim relief passed in her favour on 01/11/2018 in
Notice of Motion No. 4213/2018 in the present suit.
2. The plaintiff states that this court had passed ad-interim
relief of temporary injunction on 01/11/2018 and restrained the
defendants from disturbing her peaceful possession in the suit premises
-- 1 of 5 --
N/m No. 1743/19 in Suit No. 2853/18 2 Order.
and the defendants no.4 and 5 were restrained from creating third party
rights in the suit premises till the next date.
3. This ad-interim order was continued till 19/03/2019.
However her advocate could not attend the court on that particular date
and inadvertently he could not file the application to continue the ad-
interim order passed in her favour. The court did not continue the ad-
interim order since 12/04/2019. The ad-interim order was discontinued
from that date. Thereafter the suit is transferred to this court.
4. Meanwhile, the defendants locked the suit premises
illegally as the ad-interim order was discontinued. They put board on
the suit premises in the absence of the plaintiff. The defendants
removed and destroyed the documents, new files relating to current
business transactions. They destroyed all old papers, files etc. and
trespassed into the suit premises. The defendants even threatened to kill
the plaintiff and her husband if they tried to take back the possession of
the suit premises. The plaintiff had approached the D.B.Marg Police
Station against the defendants on 09/04/2019, but the police refused to
lodge any complaint against the defendants as the dispute was of civil
nature. The plaintiff had complained to the society against the
defendants, but the society did not take any action on her complaint.
5. The plaintiff has prayed to continue/restore the ad-interim
relief granted by this court on 01/11/2018 passed in Notice of Motion
No. 4213/2018 in the interest of justice.
6. The defendants appeared and strongly opposed this notice
of motion. They state that the ad-interim order was not
-- 2 of 5 --
N/m No. 1743/19 in Suit No. 2853/18 3 Order.
extended/continued since 12/04/2019. This court cannot extend or
continue the ad-interim orders after six years. They state that this is a
false notice of motion only to dispossess them from the suit premises.
They have prayed to dismiss the notice of motion.
7. Heard both sides at length. Perused the ad-interim order
passed by this court on 01/11/2018. The predecessor of this court had
held in detail that the plaintiff was the sole proprietress of the business.
The plaintiff had given the possession of the old premises to defendants
no.1 to 3 for redevelopment. This court had protected the possession of
the plaintiff in the suit premises.
8. The plaintiff or her advocate could not file an application
on 12/04/2019 for extension or continuation of ad-interim order and so
it was automatically vacated. Thereafter the suit was transferred from
one court to the other. Thereafter it appears that the defendants have
changed/removed the locks of the suit premises and inserted a board on
the suit premises. The plaintiff and her husband had approached
D.B.Marg Police station and tried to lodge complaint against the
defendants but the police did not register their complaint. It appears
that the ad-interim protection could not be continued/extended only
because of the fault of advocate of the plaintiff. Even if the ad-interim
orders are not in existence today, status-quo ante can be given in favour
of the plaintiff. The possession of the plaintiff on the date of filing of the
suit is to be seen and not what is today’s position. The learned
predecessor of this court had considered all the documents in detail and
held that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit premises on the date
of filing of the suit. I have seen the ‘Letter of Allotment and Possession’
dated 16/08/2012. There are two letters out of which one letter doesn’t
-- 3 of 5 --
N/m No. 1743/19 in Suit No. 2853/18 4 Order.
bear the photographs of defendants no.4 and 5 and their signatures and
the another letter of same date bears their photographs and signatures.
These letters show that there is alteration/manipulation in the
allotment letter. I am of the view that the ad-interim protection given to
the plaintiff needs to be continued/extended from today in the interest
of justice. The plaintiff should not suffer because of the mistake of her
advocate. Not filing an application for extension of ad-interim relief is
procedural irregularity and it can be corrected by imposition of costs on
the plaintiff. If the plaintiff is directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- only to
the defendants no.4 and 5, then it will meet the ends of justice and the
earlier order can be continued/extended. The detailed notice of motion
for temporary injunction is yet to be heard. The matter can be heard in
detail as to who is in possession as on today. But considering the
previous ad-interim order, it needs to be extended/continued.
Accordingly I allow the notice of motion and pass the following order :
- ORDER -
1. Notice of Motion No. 1743/2019 is hereby allowed subject to
payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- only to be paid to defendants no.4
and 5 within 14 days from the date of this order.
2. The ad-interim protection/relief granted in favour of the plaintiff
is hereby continued/extended till the disposal of main Notice of
Motion No. 4213/2018 subject to the payment of costs by the
plaintiff.
3. The defendants are temporarily restrained from disturbing the
peaceful possession of the plaintiff in the suit premises till the
hearing and disposal of main Notice of Motion No. 4213/2018.
4. The defendants no.4 and 5 are temporarily restrained from
creating third party rights in the suit premises till the hearing and
disposal of the main Notice of Motion No. 4213/2018.
5. If the plaintiffs do not pay/fail to pay the costs to the defendants
no.4 and 5, then this order will be vacated.
-- 4 of 5 --
N/m No. 1743/19 in Suit No. 2853/18 5 Order.
6. Notice of Motion No. 1743/2019 is disposed of.
(P.G.BHOSALE)
Judge, City Civil Court,
(Court Room No.62)
Date : 04/09/2025. Mumbai.
1. Directly dictated on computer on : 04/09/2025.
2. Checked on : 08/09/2025.
3. Signed on : 08/09/2025.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
08/09/2025. 2.50 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni.
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri P.G.Bhosale.
(Court Room No.62).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 04/09/2025.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 08/09/2025.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 08/09/2025.
-- 5 of 5 --