← Library
Bombay High CourtCAW/587/2016

Miss. Anita Krishnarao Shirolkar @ Mrs. Janaki Vikas Morey v. M/S. Nandan Builders, Through Parnter And ORS

2017-02-24Hon'Ble Shri Justice Rajesh G. Ketkar2 pages

1 / 2 caw/587/2016 Tapadia RR/P-1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 587 OF 2016 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6526 OF 2014 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6526 OF 2014 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 687 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.132 OF 2010 Miss. Anita Krishnarao Shirolkar @ Mrs Janaki Vikas Morey ..Petitioner.

Vs M/s. Nandan Builders, through partner and Ors.

.. Respondents Mr. Madhav Jamdar , Advocate for Petitioner in W.P/6526/2016. Mr. S.S.Kanetkar, Advocate for Respondents no.1 and 2. Ms. Pooja Kshirsagar a/w Shradha Achliya i/b ALMT Legal for Respondent no.3.

CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J.

DATE : 24/02/2017 PC:

1.

Not on Board. At the request of Mr. Jamdar, taken up for admission. Heard Mr.Madhav Jamdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.S.S.Kanetkar, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2 and Ms.Pooja Kshirsagar, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

2.

This is an application for modification of the order dated 6.1.2015 passed by this Court. By that order, notice was issued to the respondents and, in the meantime, ad-interim order in terms of prayer clause (b) of the petition was granted. By prayer

2 / 2 caw/587/2016 clause (b), the petitioner prayed for stay of further proceedings of Spl Civil Suit No.1421 of 2006 pending on the file of learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Pune.

3.

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had filed application Exh.5 for injunction restraining the defendants from carrying out any construction activities in respect of properties described in paragraph 1(a) and (b) of the plaint. The petitioner also took out application Exh.7 for appointment of Court Receiver. By order dated 11.6.2009, the learned trial Judge rejected both the applications Exhibits 5 and 7.

In view thereof, the prayer made by the petitioner for modification of the said order thereby directing the trial Court to hear application Exhibit-150, cannot be considered as basically relief claimed in application Exhibit 150 was already rejected by the trial Court. Hence, no relief can be granted in this Civil Application and accordingly Civil Application is dismissed. 5.

List these petitions, i.e W.P. No.6526 of 2014 and 687 of 2015 for admission on 24.3.2017, high on board. (R.G.KETKAR, J.)