Purushottam Gagan Thakur v. State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur Employees, Utkarsha Chs Ltd. Thr. Shubhada Ramkrishna Joag And ANR

1/2 4 AO 219-22.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 219 of 2022 Purushottam Gagan Thakur ..

Appellant

Versus

State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Employees, Utkarsha CHS Ltd, thru Shubhada Ramkrishna Joag & Anr ..

Respondents ...

Mr.Vineet Naik, Sr. Advocate with Harish Pawar i/b Ajit J. Kenjale for the appellant.

Mr.Akshay Puranik i/b Abhishek Adke for the respondent. CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.

DATED : 22nd MARCH, 2022 P.C:- Heard Mr.Vineet Naik, the learned Senior counsel, who seek withdrawal of the Appeal. The withdrawal is sought in the background of the peculiar facts, being that the present Appeal is filed being aggrieved by dismissal of Notice of Motion filed in the year 2017 by the present appellant who was the original defendant no.1, seeking permission to construct the compound wall to his plot in terms of the sanction letter granted by the MCGM.

Tilak

2/2 4 AO 219-22.doc Considering that such an application is not maintainable, the Notice of Motion came to be rejected on 8/3/2021 in the Suit filed by the plaintiff, seeking simplicitor injunction against the defendants and seeking a relief restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession. The learned Senior Counsel seek withdrawal of the present Appeal with a liberty to adopt appropriate course which was sought through the Notice of Motion which is now rejected. He is at liberty to institute independent proceedings and if at all the law permits taking benefit of the pendency of the Notice of Motion, subject to any objection being raised by the other side and leaving it to the discretion of the learned Judge to take a decision qua the point of limitation, if at all independent proceedings are instituted.

Appeal is permitted to be withdrawn as disposed off as such.

( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Tilak