Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N. M. No.3008/2019 Order
MHCC010082292019 Presented on : 07.08.2019
Registered on : 07.08.2019
Decided on : 22.09.2025
Duration : 06 01 15
Years Month Days
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3008/2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010082292019)
IN
SHORT CAUSE SUIT NO. 783/2018
Mr. Katari Chetan Naidu,
Age: 36 years, Occupation: Service,
residing at A-504, Lavista Apartment Poonam Sagar
Complex Mira Road (E) Thane 401 107. … Plaintiff
Versus
1 Mr. Challagundla Deshuma Naidu,
Aged: 70 years, Occupation: Nil
Residing at room admeasuring about
18 X 18 sq. ft., situated at Ganesh Wadi near Besant
Cinema, near G. C. Road, Opp. Shalimar Petrol
Pump Chembur, Mumbai 400074.
And permanently residing at
Village and Post Kotrakona G. D. Nellor
Mandalam District Chittor Andhra Pradesh
2 Zameer Shaikh Gulam Hussain Shaikh,
Age 46 years, Occupation Not known
3 Sameer Shaikh Gulam Hussain Shaikh,
Age 42 years, Occupation: Not known,
Both presently residing at Ganesh Wadi, near Besant
Cinema, near G. C. Road, Opp. Shalimar Petrol
Pump, Chembur, Mumbai 400071. … Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE, A. C. DAGA
: COURT ROOM NO. 61
DATE : 22.09.2025
-- 1 of 5 --
N. M. No. 3008/2019 ... 2 … Order
Appearances: -
Adv. Guruling Samagond i/b Adv. Deepak Pandey for Plaintiff.
Adv. Maulik Tanna for Defendant No.1.
ORDER
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
Instant Notice of Motion is moved by the Plaintiff praying
for restraining the Defendants from creating third party rights in the
suit premises as well as for appointing Court Receiver. It is pleaded in
the Notice of Motion that the Defendant No.1 got 50% ownership
transferred in his name of the suit premises which was owned by
grandfather of Plaintiff. Thereafter, by virtue of the ‘Will’ executed by
grandfather of the Plaintiff, 50% share of the suit premises was given to
Plaintiff. Defendant No.1 sold suit premises to Defendants No.2 and 3.
There is every possibility that Defendants No.2 and 3 will create third
party interest in the suit premises. Hence, the Notice of Motion.
2. Defendant No.2 contested the Notice of Motion stating that
Defendant No.2 is residing with his family in the suit premises and
therefore, there is no question of dispossessing it. Prayed for rejection of
the Notice of Motion.
3. Defendant No.1 has filed Pursis adopted Written Statement
as Reply to the Notice of Motion and has raised plea that the Defendant
No.1 has purchased the suit premises by Agreement dated 16.12.1985
and has sold it to Defendants No.2 and 3 by Sale Deed dated
25.01.2018. Defendants No.2 and 3 are in lawful possession of the suit
premises. Prayed for rejection of the Notice of Motion.
4. Heard both sides.
5. During arguments, Ld. Advocate for Plaintiff submitted
-- 2 of 5 --
N. M. No. 3008/2019 ... 3 … Order
that, the property is of grandfather of Plaintiff. All were staying
together. Defendant No.1 is the maternal uncle of Plaintiff who made an
MOU and got 50% ownership transferred to him. There is a ‘Will’
executed by the grandfather, who died in 2014, bequeathing 50% of the
suit premises to the Plaintiff. Defendant No.1 sold the whole suit
premise to Defendants No.2 and 3.
6. The Ld. Advocate for Defendant No.1 submitted that, the
description of property is not given to identify it. Defendant No.1
purchased the suit premises in the year 1985 as is pleaded in the
Written Statement and has sold it in the year 2018 to Defendants No.2
and 3.
7. Considering the arguments and pleadings, it appears that,
though the Plaintiff is claiming to have 50 % share in the suit premises
by virtue of the ‘Will’ still till date, ‘Will’ has not been probated and
therefore, cannot be looked into.
8. It is admitted position that Defendants No.2 and 3 are in
possession of the suit room. It is the claim of Defendants that Defendant
No.1 sold suit room to Defendants No.2 and 3. Defendant No.2 in his
Reply has specifically pleaded that Defendant No.2 with his family
residing in the suit room and therefore, there is no question of creating
third party in it.
9. It is the claim of the Plaintiff that Defendants might create
third party right. Such apprehension has no basis. No pleadings either
in the Notice of Motion or in the suit as to from where Plaintiff came to
know about such intentions of Defendants No.2 and 3. As such, merely
on the basis of the apprehension without any foundation, the Plaintiff
-- 3 of 5 --
N. M. No. 3008/2019 ... 4 … Order
failed to prima-facie bring on record that is the Defendants No.2 and 3
who are trying to create third party interest or might create third party
interest in the suit room. As such, Plaintiff failed to make out prima-
facie case. Balance of convenience does not lie in favour of Plaintiff. No
irreparable loss will be caused to the Plaintiff in case the injunction as
prayed is not granted. Accordingly, I pass the following Order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion is rejected.
2. Accordingly, Notice of Motion No.3008/2019 stands disposed off.
DATE: - 22.09.2025 (A. C. DAGA)
JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT,
GR. MUMBAI.
Dictated on : 22.09.2025
Transcribed on : 22.09.2025
Checked on : 22.09.2025
Signed on : 22.09.2025
-- 4 of 5 --
N. M. No. 3008/2019 ... 5 … Order
"CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER"
DATE: 23.09.2025, AT 05.45 P. M. Siddhesh S. Shirke
STENOGRAPHER (GRADE-I)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court no.) : SHRI A. C. DAGA, (C. R. NO.
61)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/Order : 22.09.2025
Judgment/Order signed by the P. O.
on : 22.09.2025
Judgment/Order uploaded on : 23.09.2025
-- 5 of 5 --