Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12391 Bom
Judgement Date : 30 November, 2022
11.IA.688.21 wt. FA.121.21.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 688 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 121 OF 2021
Bhavesh Pooj & Anr. ... Applicants/Appellants
(Orig. Defendant No.2 and 2(a))
Versus
Jagdish Ramniklal Padia & Ors. ... Respondents/Defendants
Mr. Sagheer A. Khan a/w Tanzila Kazi i/b Judicare Law Associates for the
Applicants/Appellants.
Mr. Rajendra R. Mishra for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
CORAM : R.I. CHAGLA, J.
DATED : 30th NOVEMBER, 2022.
ORDER :
1 Heard the learned Advocate for the parties.
2 By this Interim Application the Applicants/Appellants are
seeking stay of the operation and implementation of the judgment and
decree dated 15.02.2020 passed by the City Civil Court at Bombay in
Short Cause Suit No.7353 of 2006.
3 The Applicants/Appellants appear to be aggrieved with the
finding of the Trial Court that Defendant No.1 was not entitled to the sale
Waghmare 1/3
11.IA.688.21 wt. FA.121.21.doc
or transfer of the entire flat from Defendant Nos.2 and 2(a) by virtue of
agreement of sale dated 18.03.2006. There was an issue of limitation
which has been held against the Defendants. The Applicants/Appellants
are seeking stay of paragraph 3 of the operative part of the order which is
a declaration that the Plaintiffs are entitled for vacant and peaceful
possession of their one half share in the suit flat from Defendant Nos.2
and 2(a) as prayed in the Suit.
4 The learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents who are
the Original Plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 in the Suit has objected to any stay is of
the operation and implementation of the impugned judgment and decree
dated 15.02.2020 being granted. He has submitted that it has been
rightly held by the Court below that the agreement of sale/sale deed
dated 18.03.2006 executed with one Rita Padia, Defendant No.2 in the
Sui by which Defendant No.1 has claimed that they are entitled to sale or
transfer of the entire suit flat is illegal and cannot be given effect to as
Defendant No.2 is not the owner of the entire Suit flat.
5 The learned Advocate for the Respondent / Original Plaintiff
Nos.1 to 5 has submitted that the Appellants were not even residing in the
suit premises. Accordingly, he has submitted that there is no merit in the
Interim Application.
Waghmare 2/3
11.IA.688.21 wt. FA.121.21.doc
6 Having considered the Interim Application, it is noted that
the Interim Application has been taken out on 05.02.2021 which sought a
stay of the impugned judgment and order which had been passed on
15.02.2020. There is no explanation in the Interim Application as to the
delay in seeking stay of the impugned judgment and order passed by the
lower Court. Further, the agreement of sale/sale deed dated 18.03.2006
executed by Rita Padia, Defendant No.2 in the Suit in faovour of
Appellants has been held to be illegal and bad in law to the extent of one
half share of the Plaintiffs in the suit flat. Thus, it has been held that the
entire suit flat could not have been sold to the Appellants. Further, it is
the case of the Original Plaintiff Nos.1 to 5 that the Appellants were not
residing in the suit flat after Claimants purchased the suit flat.
7 At this stage there can be no stay the operation and
implementation of the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2020 passed by
the trial Court in Short Cause Suit No.7353 of 2006.
8 Interim Application is accordingly disposed of.
(R.I. CHAGLA, J.)
Digitally signed by WAISHALI SUSHIL WAISHALI WAGHMARE SUSHIL Date:
WAGHMARE 2022.12.03
11:06:41
+0530
Waghmare 3/3
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!