Tejkumar Shankarlal Kumawat v. The Regent Group, Builders And Developers And Others

by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date:

2025.01.16 14:36:52 +0530 VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU 22-ao-29-2025-ia-433-2025.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

varsha CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 29 OF 2025 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 433 OF 2025 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 29 OF 2025 Tejkumar Shankarlal Kumawat ... Appellant/Applicant vs.

The Regent Group, Builders and Developers and Ors ... Respondents Mr. Jitendra G. Damani for Appellant/Applicant. Mr. Shanay Shah, Mr. Pankaj Pandey a/w. Mr. Smit K. Nagda for Respondent No.1.

Mr. Neel Gala i/b. Kaivalya Raul for Respondent No.2. Mr. Om Suryavanshi for Respondent-BMC CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 15th JANUARY 2025 ORDER:

1.

Learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that in addition to the directions in clause 2 of the impugned order, respondent no.1 would secure flat towards the claim of the plaintiff's father. Statement made on behalf of respondent no. 1 is accepted as an undertaking to this court. It is not in dispute that the premises in which the plaintiff claims right originally belongs to the plaintiff's Page no. 1 of 2

22-ao-29-2025-ia-433-2025.doc father. The plaintiff does not claim exclusive right in his independent capacity.

2.

In view of these facts, I do not see any error in the impugned order. The statement made on behalf of respondent no.1 further protects the plaintiff's right if any. Hence, I see no reason to further examine the impugned order. The appeal would therefore, not require any consideration.

3.

The appeal is therefore dismissed. In view of dismissal of the appeal, the pending application is disposed of as infructuous. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 2 of 2