Amita Hemant Shah And ANR v. Kamlesh Thakorlal Shah

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8377 OF 2025 Amita Hemant Shah and Anr ...

Petitioners V/s.

Kamlesh Thakorlal Shah ...

Respondent ------------------- Mr. Krishna Holambe Patil with K.K. Holambe Patil and Vishal Shirsat, for the petitioners.

--------------------

CORAM

:

N.J. JAMADAR, J.

Digitally signed by VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD Date:

2025.07.03 09:45:56 +0530 VARSHA DEEPAK GAIKWAD DATE :

2nd JULY 2025 PC:

1.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 2.

The challenge in this petition is to an order dated 13th March 2025 passed by the Appellate Bench of Court of Small Causes in Revision Application No. 50 of 2024 whereby the Revision Application preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed, affirming the order dated 12th October 2023 passed by the Trial Judge on an application (Exhibit-32) in LE and C Suit No. 77 of 2017, thereby rejecting the said application preferred by the petitioner for stay of the suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3.

The petitioner has instituted Special Civil Suit No. 2415 of 2012 before the City Civil Court seeking a decree of specific performance of a verbal agreement for sale of the suit premises. Subsequently, the respondent, in turn, instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the suit premises, asserting that the petitioner is a gratuitous licencee in respect of the suit premises. The petitioner preferred an application for stay of the suit under Section 10 of the Code on the premise that the parties to both the proceedings are the same and the issues which arise from determination in both the suits are identical and separate trial of the suits might result in conflicting decisions. It was, therefore, necessary to stay the subsequent suit instituted by the plaintiff/respondent.

4.

The Trial Judge as well as Appellate Bench of Court of Small Causes negatived the claim of the petitioner. 5.

Mr. Krishna Holambe Patil made an endeavour to persuade the Court to hold that there is a imminent risk of conflicting decisions, if both the suits are tried and decided independently. In the alternative, it was submitted that in the event the decree is passed in the suit before the Court of Small Causes, the same be not executed till the decision of the suit instituted by the petitioner for specific performance of the

verbal agreement.

6.

Having perused the material on record, this Court does not find any material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Appellate Bench of the Court of Small Causes. It does not appear that the issues which arise for determination in the suit before the Court of Small Causes directly and substantially arise for determination in the suit before the City Civil Court.

7.

The Small Causes Court has exclusive jurisdiction in the matter of determination of the question as to whether the petitioner/ defendant in the suit before the Court of Small Causes is a gratuitous licencee.

8.

Both the suits can be tried and decided independently. If the question of title arises, provisions contained in section 45 of the Presidency Small Causes Court Act would govern the rights of the parties. Hence, the petition does not deserve to be entertained. 9.

The petition stands dismissed.

(N.J. JAMADAR, J)