Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: Notice of Motion No.2284/2018
-:1:-
MHCC010073652018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, GREATER MUMBAI AT
MAZGAON
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2284 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO.1161 OF 2018
Shri Pravin Kumar Kairamkonda ...Plaintiff
Versus
Shri. Dharmesh Ratilal Patni ...Defendant
None present for plaintiff and defendant.
CORAM : H.H. JUDGE SHRI SANJIV PRABHAKAR PINGLE,
COURT ROOM NO.84,
O R D E R
(Delivered on 04/02/2026 & 26/02/2026)
1) By the present notice of motion, plaintiff sought the temporary
prohibitory injunction against the defendant restraining him not to
create third party rights or part with possession of the suit premises
i.e. Godown No.17 having carpet area of 91.41 sq. mtrs. on the
ground floor of plot No.J-2, Maharashtra Gujarat Transporters Shram
Seva Premises Co-operative Society Ltd. Wadala Truck Terminal,
Wadala, Mumbai – 400037.
2) Notice of motion is supported by affidavit of Pravin Kumar
Kairamkonda contending that the interlocutory relief sought if not
-- 1 of 6 --
Notice of Motion No.2284/2018
-:2:-
granted in his favour there is likelihood that it would cause grave
prejudice which cannot be compensated in terms of money. Hence,
prayed to allow the notice of motion.
3) It appears that by Reg. Post AD, reply has been sent by the
defendant as per the envelope placed, on record addressed to this
Court, signed by Dharmesh Ratilal Patni dated 02/08/2018 which is
notarized by Ld. Notary Advocate Faruk I. Vohra, Area : Baroda City,
R. No.5861/08, Government of India.
4) It appears that defendant is residing at Thakor Leela, Opp.
Gendigate Darwaja, Vadodara-390017 resisting the notice of motion
as false and frivolous contending that the suit is bad for misjoinder
and non-joinder of the party worthy to be dismissed.
5) The contentions of plaint and notice of motion are self
contradictory. There was an Memorandum of Understanding dated
14/07/2014 entered in between parties pertains to the Godown
No.17 having carpet area as reflected in the plaint. Therefore, the suit
was filed with a view to harass and malign his image. Hence, prayed
to dismiss the notice of motion. The suit is filed by suppressing of the
said vital facts.
(Due to Recess, further order is deferred till 06/02/2025.)
(Further order is continued today on 26/02/2026.)
6) Following points arises for my determination to which I have
noted my findings with reasons thereon to each one as under :-
SR.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Does the plaintiff/applicant made out
the prima facie to grant temporary
prohibitory injunction against ?
No.
-- 2 of 6 --
Notice of Motion No.2284/2018
-:3:-
SR.NO. POINTS FINDINGS
2. Whether the balance of convenience is
tilted towards the plaintiff ?
No.
3. Whether, in case if, the injunction is
refused irreparable loss which cannot
be compensated in terms of money
would sustain to the rights of the
plaintiff ?
No.
4. What Order? Notice of motion is
dismissed.
R E A S O N S
7) When called, none present. The age of present notice of motion
is nearly 9 years. Hence, taken for disposal in accordance with the
law.
8) Perused the record and proceeding. The suit No.1611 of 2018
and present notice of motion is pending since long unattended by not
taking positive, effective and vigilant steps showing the pendency of
the suit and present notice of motion for a considerable period of last
9 years.
9) So far as the relief sought of temporary injunction, it is well
settled law by plethora of the pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex
Court and Hon’ble High Courts that unless and until plaintiff is
succeeded showing a prima facie case tilting the balance of
convenience in his favour and further, showing that, in case if, the
injunction is not granted then plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss
which cannot be compensated in terms of money.
10) So far as these vital aspects are concerned, the plaintiff has
come up with the case that if the interlocutory relief sought, if not
-- 3 of 6 --
Notice of Motion No.2284/2018
-:4:-
granted in that case, there is every likelihood that it would cause
grave prejudice to his rights which cannot be compensated in terms
of money.
11) Merely saying so, it would not
ipso facto prove the three
yardstick which are required to be considered by every Court while
considering the aspect of granting of interlocutory relief sought by
the plaintiff.
12) I have carefully perused the supporting affidavit of the notice of
motion filed by Pravin Kumar Kairamkonda. He says in para 2 that it
would be just, convenient and proper in the interest of justice, equity
and fair play pending final hearing and disposal of the Suit, whatever
interlocutory relief has been sought, prayed to be granted by merely
saying that no prejudice would be caused if the said relief is granted
in his favour. It will not suffice purpose, unless it is established within
the principle of preponderance of probability. Nothing has been made
out prima facie, to grant relief.
13) Per Contra, as per the stand taken by the respondent/original
defendant in his reply sent through Reg. Post AD duly signed by one
Dharmesh Ratilal Patni dated 02/08/2018, notarized by Ld. Notary
Advocate Faruk I. Vohra contended that the contentions of the
plaintiff in the suit are contradictory itself. There was Memorandum
of Understanding dated 14/07/2014 entered into in between the
parties pertains to the Godown No.17 having carpet area reflected in
the plaint. Despite the said fact, false and frivolous suit which suffer
from misjoinder and non-joinder of parties is worthy to be dismissed.
Therefore, no question to grant interlocutory relief as sought. Hence,
prayed to dismiss the same.
-- 4 of 6 --
Notice of Motion No.2284/2018
-:5:-
14) Considering the rival stands taken and for the best reason
known, the present notice of motion nor Suit No.1611 of 2018 was
never prosecuted and pressed into service in accordance with the law
goes to the root. Therefore, I have no hesitation to conclude that
there is no prima facie case to grant interlocutory, temporary,
prohibitory relief as sought in the notice of motion. Hence, notice of
motion fails as none of the three vital points have been established to
grant relief as sought.
15) Thus, I noted my findings to the Point Nos.1 to 3 accordingly
and I proceed to pass following order :
ORDER
1. Notice of motion No.2284 of 2018 is dismissed with costs.
2. The last chance is granted to the plaintiff to take positive,
effective and vigilant steps, else suit No.1611 of 2018 would
stand dismissed in default without further reference to this
Court.
3. Notice of motion No.2284 of 2018 is disposed of accordingly.
(Dictated, delivered and pronounced in open Court)
( SANJIV PRABHAKAR PINGLE )
JUDGE, CR NO.84,
Date : 26/02/2026 CITY CIVIL COURT, AT MAZGAON,
MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 26/02/2026.
Transcribed on : 27/02/2026.
Signed on : 02/03/2026.
-- 5 of 6 --
Notice of Motion No.2284/2018
-:6:-
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Sonali S. Naik
Name of Stenographer02/03/2026 5.45 p.m.
Name of the Judge (With C.R. No.) HHJ SHRI. SANJIV PRABHAKAR
PINGLE
(COURT ROOM NO.84)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT / ORDER
26/02/2026
JUDGMENT / ORDER signed by P.O.
on
02/03/2026
JUDGMENT / ORDER uploaded on 02/03/2026
-- 6 of 6 --