Interim Order 4

Order Details: Order on Exhibit
Pdf Text: :: 1 ::
CNR No. MHSCA-3000590-2021
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT MUMBAI.
(BANDRA BRANCH)
Order Below Exhibit 22
In
R.A.E. Suit No. 289 of 2021
1. Shri Rakesh Champalal Kothari & Ors. ….... Plaintiffs
V/s.
1. Mr. Chandresh Gopalji Seth (Deleted since deceased)
1a. Smt. Neeta Chandresh Sheth & Ors. …... Defendants
Advocate for the plaintiff : Mr. L. V. Jain
Advocate for defendant No. 2 : Mr. R. A. Agashe
Coram : K. M. Kayangude,
Vacation Judge,
C.R. No. 38 (B.B.)
Date : 13.05.2024
Oral Order :
The present Consent Terms are filed on behalf of the
plaintiffs and the defendant No. 2. Perused the Consent Terms and
heard learned advocate for the plaintiffs. He submitted that the
plaintiffs are withdrawing the suit against the defendant Nos. 1(a) to
1(c) and defendant No. 3. Accordingly, he prayed to accept the
Consent Terms and prayed for Consent Decree.
2. On perusal of the plaint, it appears that the plaintiffs
specifically asserted that one Ichchhaben Gopal Seth was the original
tenant in respect of the suit premises. The defendant No. 1 claims to
be the legal heir of original tenant. The defendant No. 1 illegally and
unlawfully subletted or transferred the suit premises to the defendant
Nos. 2 and 3. Thus, as per the plaintiffs, the defendant Nos. 2 and 3
are the illegal occupants.
/home/steno38/Desktop/KMK/NOTICES 2023-24/MAY-24/Ex 22 RAE 289-21.odt
-- 1 of 2 --
:: 2 ::
3. It appears from the record that suit summons was not
served on the defendant No. 1. The plaintiffs came to know about the
death of defendant No. 1 when the advocate of the defendant No. 1
filed pursis in one another suit bearing R.A.E. Suit No. 290 of 2021.
Thus, the defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(c) are brought on record as a legal
representatives of deceased defendant No. 1. From the record, it
appears that suit summons are yet not duly served upon the defendant
Nos. 1(a) to 1(c).
4. In such circumstances, during the vacation the plaintiffs
and defendant No. 2 prayed to take the matter on board and seeking
the Consent Decree. Admittedly, as per the plaintiffs, the defendant
No. 2 is illegal occupant and the defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(c) are the
legal heirs of original tenant. In such circumstances, considering the
pleadings of the plaintiffs, it is not fit case to accept the Consent Terms
behind back of the defendant Nos. 1(a) to 1(c). Hence, it is not a fit
case to pass Consent Decree which is against the pleadings of the
plaintiffs. Accordingly, it is a fit case to reject the Consent Terms.
Hence, following order.
:: O R D E R ::
The Consent Terms Exh. 22 stands rejected.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court.)
(K. M. Kayangude)
Date : 13.05.2024 Vacation Judge
C.R. No. 38 (B.B.)
Dictated & Typed on : 13/05/24
Checked & Signed on : 13/05/24
/home/steno38/Desktop/KMK/NOTICES 2023-24/MAY-24/Ex 22 RAE 289-21.odt
-- 2 of 2 --