Interim Order 1

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1
CNR NO.MHSCA-30001422025
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
(BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT NO.9
IN
L.D. SUIT NO.27 OF 2025
1. Mr. Abdul Rahiman Thekke
Kolayath Cherya S/o. Hassan
and ors. . . Plaintiffs.
Versus
Mr. Rati Krushna Pattanayak . . Defendant.
A. M. Saraogi : Advocate for Plaintiffs.
Coram : A.S. Pandagle, Judge
C.R.No.37
Date : 11/9/2025.
ORAL ORDER :
1. This is an application filed by the plaintiffs against
defendant for temporary injunction restraining the defendant or the
persons claiming through the defendant from in any manner causing
any obstruction in the business of the plaintiffs and/or disturb their
possession in respect of the premises being Shop No.1 situated at 1st
Floor, R.K. Suit, Bhagatsingh Nagar, No.2, Link Road, Near Sub-
Station, Goregaon (West), Mumbai-400104, admeasuring about
5500 sq.ft. bearing CTS No.161 of Village Goregaon (West), Taluka
Borivali, Mumbai 400104.
2. By filing present application it is contended by the
plaintiffs that the plaintiffs filed this suit for declaration and for
injunction. It is contended by the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs
referred to and relied upon the contents of plaint and proceedings
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Sept-25/E-9-LD-27-2025 (injunction).odt
-- 1 of 4 --
2
which may be treated as part and parcel of the present application.
3. By filing present suit, it is contended by the plaintiffs
that the plaintiffs are the licensees in respect of the suit premises. It
is further contended by the plaintiffs that on the basis of the
agreement dated 7/3/2023, plaintiff is in possession of the suit
premises as a licensee for a period of 5 years. It is contended by the
plaintiffs that the plaintiffs have carried out various renovations in
the suit premises by spending more than a Crore of Rupees and
opened the said premises to the public by holding a Muhurat on
18/1/2025. On 18/1/2025 the plaintiffs have just commenced their
business, on the said day, the business was not done because of
various visitors were attending to the said premises for Muhurat who
are well-wishers of the plaintiffs. Because of the plaintiffs have
carried out such renovation, the value of the premises have increased
substantially, only because of the said reason, the defendant on next
date attended to the premises and intimated to the plaintiffs that
now he wants the entire arrears of compensation right from the year
2023 and as also henceforth, the compensation shall be increased
substantially, the defendant will not allow the plaintiffs to conduct
any business and put the lock upon the said premises. Therefore, the
plaintiffs seeking relief of temporary injunction.
4. After service of summons and notice, the defendant fails
to cause their appearance, therefore by passing order below Exh.1,
suit proceeded further exparte, therefore there is no say of the
defendant on interim application.
5. From the contentions of the plaintiffs, following points
arises for my determination and I have recorded my findings thereon
with reasons are as under :
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Sept-25/E-9-LD-27-2025 (injunction).odt
-- 2 of 4 --
3
Sr.No. Points : Findings :
1. Do the plaintiffs prove that they have
made out prima facie case in their
favour ?
. . In the affirmative.
2. Do the plaintiffs prove that
irreparable loss would be caused to
them in case injunction is refused ?
. . In the affirmative.
3. Do the plaintiffs prove that balance
of convenience lies in their favour ?
. . In the affirmative.
4. What order ? .. As per final order.
: R E A S O N S :
AS TO POINTS NO.1 TO 3 :-
6. Heard Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs.
7. After hearing Ld. Advocate for the plaintiffs, gone
through the contents of application, also gone through the record of
the proceedings, also gone through the documents filed by the
plaintiffs alongwith list of documents Exh.3, plaintiffs alongwith list
of documents Exh.3 filed copies of photographs, copy of
memorandum of understanding dated 4/3/2023 etc.
8. It is alleged by the plaintiffs that the defendant given
threat to the plaintiffs to put lock the suit premises and not to allow
the plaintiffs to conduct the business. The plaintiffs having
apprehension that the defendant will put lock to the suit premises
and will obstruct the plaintiffs from conducting the business from the
suit premises. On perusal of copy of memorandum of understanding
dated 4/3/2023 it prima facie appears that the plaintiffs are the
licensees in respect of the suit premises, the said agreement was
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Sept-25/E-9-LD-27-2025 (injunction).odt
-- 3 of 4 --
4
executed between the plaintiffs and defendant on 7/3/2023, the
license period is for 5 years. It prima facie appears that the
agreement is not yet terminated by efflux of time, in such
circumstances, the right of the plaintiffs is required to be protected
by way of temporary injunction. I find that there is prima facie case,
balance of convenience is also lies in favour of the plaintiffs, no harm
or prejudice will be caused to the defendant. Furthermore the
defendant after paper publication of notice and summons, not caused
their appearance in this proceeding. Therefore, I answered Point
No.1 to 3 in the affirmative and in answer to Point No.4, I proceed
to pass following order.
ORDER
1. Application is allowed.
2. The defendant or the persons claiming through the
defendant are hereby by way of temporary injunction
restrained from in any manner causing any obstruction
in the business of the plaintiffs and/or disturb their
possession in respect of the premises being Shop No.1
situated at 1st Floor, R.K. Suit, Bhagatsingh Nagar,
No.2, Link Road, Near Sub-Station, Goregaon (West),
Mumbai-400104, admeasuring about 5500 sq.ft.
bearing CTS No.161 of Village Goregaon (West),
Taluka Borivali, Mumbai-400104, without following
due process of law, till conclusion of the trial.
Bandra - Mumbai. ( A.S. Pandagle )
Date : 11/9/2025. Judge, C.R.No.37.
.
/home/steno37/ASP/Order/Sept-25/E-9-LD-27-2025 (injunction).odt
-- 4 of 4 --