Rekha Ranganath Matte vs. Vijay Ranganath Matte

Order - Status 5: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.865 OF 2010 (Rekha Vs.Vijay) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's order Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Saeed Akhtar, for appellant. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 7th JULY, 2010 P.C. Heard Mr.Saeed Akhtar, learned counsel for the appellants. 2] Issue notice before admission to the respondent, returnable after four weeks. 3] In the meantime, call for Record and Proceedings of the case. The appellant shall file compilation of the relevant documents before the next of hearing. [R.G.KETKAR, J.] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2392 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.865 OF 2010 (Rekha Vs.Vijay) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's order Court's or Judge's orders Mr.Saeed Akhtar, for applicant. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 7th JULY, 2010 P.C. Heard Mr.Saeed Akhtar, learned counsel for the applicants. 2] This application is preferred by the original plaintiffs praying for injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from disturbing the peaceful use and occupation and exclusive possession of the suit tenement. 3] Rule. Rule is made returnable after four weeks. 4] Mr.Saeed submits that during the pendency of the suit, the appellants took out Notice of Motion. By order dated 27th October, 2005, the learned trial Judge restrained the respondent/original defendant from disturbing peaceful possession of the appellants in respect of Tenement No.61/2729, Second Floor, Bandra Tarang CHS Ltd., Gandhi Nagar, Bandra (East), Mumbai. In so far as the shop No.1 situate in the same society is concerned, the learned trial Judge has issued injunction restraining the respondent from causing obstruction and interference in peaceful possession of the appellants. 5] In view of this, there shall be adinterim order in terms of prayer clause (a). [R.G.KETKAR, J.]

Order - Status 11: FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2392 OF 2010 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 865 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's Court's or orders or directions & Judge's orders. Registrar's orders. Shri Saeed Akhtar for the Applicants. Shri K.S. Patil for the Respondent. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 27TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Applicants. He submits that interim relief during pendency of the suit was operating in terms of prayer clause (a) of this application and, therefore, the said interim relief deserves to be continued. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent opposed the said prayer by submitting that the case made out by the Applicants regarding exclusive possession has been discarded by the Trial Court. There was an interim relief operating during pendency of the suit granted in terms of prayer clause (a) of this application which deserves to be continued. Accordingly, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) subject to condition that the Applicants will not create any third party rights and will not part with possession of the suit premises in favour of any third party. (A.S.OKA, J)