Ruparel Developers India Pvt Ltd v. Crus Mangesh Edekar And 5 ORS

APP. 247-15 VPH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL No. 247 OF 2015 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS No. 322 OF 2014 IN SUIT No. 325 OF 2014 Ruparel Developers India Pvt. Ltd.

...

Appellant Vs.

Cyrus Mangesh Edekar & Ors.

...

Respondents *** Mr. Gaurav Joshi, Sr. Counsel a/w Sanmish Gala i/b Markand Gandhi & Co. for the Appellant.

Mr. Zal Andhyarjina a/w Ms. Tanvi Kamat i/b Hariani & Co., for Respondent No. 1.

Mr. Huzefa Khokhawala a/w Ms. Gauri Rege i/b Nankani & Associates, for Respondent No. 2.

*** CORAM : V. M. KANADE, & REVATI MOHITE-DERE, JJ.

DATE : FEBRUARY 1, 2016 PC.

1.

The grievance of the Appellant is that though the original applicant (Respondent No. 1 herein) in the chamber summons is not a party to the suit, by the impugned order the learned Single Judge has granted interim protection during pendency of the suit, 1 / 2

APP. 247-15 directing the Appellant not to dispossess Respondent No. 1 / original applicant, or to obstruct his enjoyment in the residential premises on the ground floor of the suit building. There is an inter se dispute between owners of the suit premises and the suit is filed for administration of the estate and for partition. In our view, in such a suit a tenant in the suit property cannot claim any order of injunction. Hence, impugned order is set aside.

2.

The Respondent No. 1 is, however, granted 8 weeks time to take out an appropriate proceeding before an appropriate forum, seeking protection of his rights. It is clarified that we have not made any observation regarding merits of the case and all contentions of all the parties raised in the appeal are kept open. Appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Sd/- Sd/- [REVATI MOHITE-DERE, J.] [V. M. KANADE, J.] Vinayak Halemath 2 / 2