Interim Order 2

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES AT MUMBAI
(BANDRA BRANCH)
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT NO. 10
IN
R. A. D. SUIT NO. 217 OF 2022
CNR NO. MHSCA30003162022
MR. BHARAT KUMAR BAVISHI …PLAINTIFF
V/S
1. MR. LUNKARAN MANGALCHAND JANGID & Anr.
...DEFENDANTS
********
Ketan R. Parekh & Co., Advocates for Plaintiff.
Mrs. Santosho A. Mishra, Advocate for Defendants.
********
Coram : R. R. Khan
Judge
Court Room No.33
Date : 06th March 2023
ORDER
. This is an application filed by the plaintiff for grant of
temporary injunction, restraining the defendant from dispossessing or
interfering in peaceful possession of the suit premises. It is further
prayed that plaintiff be permitted to deposit the rent and defendant
be directed to provide alternate accommodation to the plaintiff.
2. The defendant has strongly opposed this application by filing
say at Exh.15. It is contended that the suit premises is demolished by
M.C.G.M. under the provision of section 354 of M.M.C. Act, 1888. It
/home/steno33/Desktop/06032023/Exh 10 in RAD 2172022.odt
-- 1 of 3 --
2
is contended that the application is without merit and deserves for
rejection.
3. The plaintiff has filed rejoinder at Exh.16 and admitted that
suit premises is demolished under the provision of section 354 of the
M.M.C. Act. The plaintiff has supported his application and
requested its approval.
4. I have perused application, reply, rejoinder and case record
very minutely and carefully. Heard both sides.
5. From the rival contention of both sides, following points arose
for my determination and I have given my findings to each of them
for the reasons given under mentioned :
Sr
No.
POINT FINDING
1 Whether plaintiff is having prima facie
case, balance of convenience in his
favour and he will suffer irreparable
loss, if injunction is not granted?
In Negative.
2 What order? Application is
rejected.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO.1 :
6. Noticeably, plaintiff has sought injunction for protecting his
peaceful possession. It is significant to mention here that suit
premises came to be demolished under the provision of section 354
/home/steno33/Desktop/06032023/Exh 10 in RAD 2172022.odt
-- 2 of 3 --
3
of M.M.C. Act, 1888. Noticeably, plaintiff and defendant have
uniformly admitted about demolition of the suit premises.
Significantly, suit premises is not in existence right now, therefore,
there exist no apprehension regarding dispossession. Despite of fully
aware of this fact of demolition of suit premises, the plaintiff has not
whispered a single word in his application and admitted by way of
rejoinder when defendant brought this fact into the notice of this
court. This indicates that plaintiff has come before this court with
unclean hands suppressing the material fact. Accordingly, no prima
facie case and balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff.
Furthermore, plaintiff will not suffer any irreparable loss in the event
of rejection of this application. Furthermore, plaintiff has sought
mandatory injunction of providing alternate accommodation which
can not be approved at this initial stage. In so far as, deposition of
rent is concerned, when suit premises is not in existence, it can not be
approved. Accordingly, for want of legal cause of action and in
absence of prima facie and balance of convenience, I am satisfied to
answer point No.1 in negative and proceed to pass following order.
ORDER
Application at Exh.10 is rejected.
( Dictated and pronounced in open Court. )
( R. R. Khan )
Date : 06.03.2023 Judge, C. R. No.33
Order dictated on : 06.03.2023
Order checked & signed on : 06.03.2023
/home/steno33/Desktop/06032023/Exh 10 in RAD 2172022.odt
-- 3 of 3 --