Shri. Sanjeev Singh For R.No.1

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE FIRST APPEAL NO.1400 OF 2005 -----------------------------------:------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.M.V.Shingade i/b Mr.G.N.Salunke for the appellants. Mr.N.V.Walavalkar i/b Mr.Sanjeev Singh for respondent no.1. Mr.J.J.Xavier for the respondent no.2. CORAM: D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED: 14TH NOVEMBER, 2006. P.C. : . Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr.Walavalkar, learned senior counsel for respondent no.1 seeks liberty to file paper book and has also tendered the same in the court. He has also served a copy of the paper book on the other side. The paper book is accepted and in view thereof printing is dispensed with. Office is directed to place the appeal for hearing, as directed earlier by this court vide order dated 4.10.2006, in the week commencing from 27.11.2006. It is open for the appellants to file additional paper book, if they so desire, before 27.11.2006. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)

Order - Status 9: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1400 OF 2005. New Borivali Prajakta Cooperative Housing ... Society Ltd. Appellant. Versus. M/s.Ashirwad Builders and others. ... Respondents. None for the Appellant. Shri Sanjeer Singh the Respondent No.1. CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED : 9th January, 2007. P.C.: 1.Not on board. Taken on board. 2.The Appeals of the year 1985 onwards are pending for final hearing and therefore, no specific date of hearing as of today can be fixed in this Appeal of the year 2005. No orders. Judge.

Order - Status 11: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1400 OF 2005 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's Orders Court's or Judge's Orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - None present. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED : 27th August, 2007 P.C. 1.Stand over after twelve weeks. [ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.]

Order - Status 15: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1400 of 2005 ... New Borivli Prajakta CHS Ltd. Appellant versus M/s.Ashirwad Builders & Anr Respondents None for the appellant. Mr.Sushil K. Chaurasia,Advocate for respondent no.1. CORAM : A.P. BHANGALE,J DATED : SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 P.C. 1 This appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 5 May 2005 passed by Bombay City Civil Court in L.C.Suit No.925 of 2004. The appellant herein (original plaintiff) had filed suit for declaration that plan sanctioned by Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay in favour of M/s.Ashirwad Builders firm having office at 1, Jai Abhilasha, Jai Raj Nagar, Linking Road, Borivali (West), Mumbai 400 092, is illegal and for permanent injunction against defendant no.1 seeking to restrain him from constructing the building pursuant to sanctioned plan on the plot no.135 at 57 Road, Borivali (West) Mumbai. 2 It is submitted on behalf of respondent no.1 that earlier the appellant plaintiff had filed Suit No.1679 of 2002 for perpetual injunction against the respondent builder. It was compromised between the parties and detailed consent terms were recorded in the said suit whereby parties are, and were bound. The respondent no.1 offered payment but it was refused by plaintiff deliberately. According to learned Advocate for the respondent, he was and is ready and willing to observe those terms mentioned in consent terms as the same are binding between the parties to the suit. Therefore, any question arising in relation to execution discharge and satisfaction of decree by consent terms in L.C. Suit No.1679 of 2002 ought to have been dealt with in execution of decree in the said suit in view of section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure and not otherwise. Furthermore, it is contended that respondent no.1 is entitled to construct in accordance with sanctioned plan by Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai and plaintiff have no right to claim any injunction against respondent no.1 when they are acting lawfully constructing in accordance with sanctioned plan. 3 Nobody appeared on behalf of plaintiffs appellant although they are represented by Advocate Mr.G.N.Salunkhe on record. 4 For the reasons stated above therefore, there is no merit in the appeal as a remedy for the appellant is to execute the decree by consent terms as finalised in S.C.Suit No.1679 of 2002. 6 Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ( A.P. BHANGALE, J )