Hemangi Madhukar Bhatkar v. Deepali Dilip Kher And ORS

Digitally signed by SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN Date:

2022.01.11 16:59:01 +0530 SHAMBHAVI NILESH SHIVGAN

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.325 OF 2019 Hemangi Madhukar Bhatkar ...Appellant Vs Deepali Dilip Kher and Ors.

... Respondents ...

Ms. Veera Shinde i/by Mr. Akshay V. Kamble for the appellant. Mr. Dharam Sharma with Ms. Uma Sharma i/by Dharam & Co. for the Respondent No.1.

CORAM : SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.

DATE : JANUARY 11, 2022.

P.C. :

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Ms. Deepali Dilip Kher, respondent no.1 herein (Original Plaintiff) instituted S.C.Suit No.1025 of 2013 seeking a declaratory decree that she is co-owner of the suit property, i.e., Room No.5, Sita Nivas Building, Girgaon, Bombay- 400004, then more particularly described in paragraph 2 of the plaint.

nd Pending suit, the learned trial Court vide order dated 2 Shivgan 1/3

July, 2018 restrained the developer (Defendant No.2) from handing over possession of the suit property to the Defendant No.1A to 1C or any of them. The Appellant before this Court is original defendant no.1B.

nd July, 2018 Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 2 passed in Notice of Motion No.1267 of 2016, defendant no.2 has preferred this Appeal From Order under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

th November, 2019, this Court admitted the appeal On 25 and stayed the operation of the impugned order. It appears, soon thereafter, the developer handed over possession of the suit property to the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant on instructions makes a statement that the appellant Hemangi Madhukar Bhatkar, original defendant no.1B is in possession of the suit property. In consideration of this fact, original plaintiff has moved an application i.e. Chamber Summons before the trial Court for protecting her rights in the property. That Chamber Summons is pending before the trial Shivgan 2/3

Court for consideration.

In that view of the matter, it would be appropriate to direct the trial Court to decide the Chamber Summons taken out by the plaintiff expeditiously and preferably within six months from today.

In view of the facts stated above, nothing survives in the appeal and, therefore, it is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. The learned counsel for the original plaintiff submits that plaintiff being senior citizen, suit may be expedited. Accordingly, suit is expedited.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.) Shivgan 3/3