Bombay High CourtAO/919/2015disposed off

Smt. Savita Kantilal Kothari And ANR v. Smt. Nita Dinesh Kothari And ORS

2015-11-30Hon'Ble Shri Justice R.D. Dhanuka2 pages

kvm 1/2 23-AO919.15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 919 OF 2015 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1120 OF 2015 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 919 OF 2015 Smt.Savita Kantilal Kothari & Anr.

..... Appellants

VERSUS

Smt.Nita Dinesh Kothari & Ors.

..... Respondents Mr.Tejas Hatalkar, i/b. Mr.Shailendra Kanetkar for the Appellants. Mr.P.J.Thorat for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

Mr.S.Amin, i/b.Ms.Nilam Pawar for Respondent No.4. CORAM :

R.D. DHANUKA, J.

DATED :

30th NOVEMBER, 2015 P.C.

By this appeal from order, the appellant has impugned the order passed by the learned trial judge refusing to grant any ad-interim order in favour of the appellant (original plaintiff). The respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 have already executed a leave and licence agreement in favour of the respondent no.4 bank. It is the case of the original plaintiff that they are co-owners of the suit premises. It is the case of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 that they are exclusive owners in respect of the premises which is given by them on leave and licence to the respondent no.4. By an order dated 8th July, 2015, this court has refused to grant ad-interim relief. 2.

The learned counsel for the respondent no.4 states that pursuant to the leave and licence agreement between respondent nos. 1 to 3 and the bank, and the

kvm 2/2 23-AO919.15 respondent no.4 bank has started their branch in the suit premises on 9th July, 2015. Statement is accepted. In my view, in view of the fact that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 have already created third party rights in favour of the respondent no.4, no relief can be granted in favour of the appellant. In my prima facie view the notice of motion filed by the appellant (original plaintiff) itself has become infructuous. I, therefore, pass the following order :- (a) Appeal from order is dismissed. No order as to costs. (b) In view of the dismissal of the appeal from order, the civil application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of.

[R.D. DHANUKA, J.]