Bombay High Court
Kishan Bhima Jadhav vs Adil Dadibai Driver And Others on 24 February, 2023
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
PRAJAKTA
SAGAR
VARTAK
Digitally signed by
PRAJAKTA SAGAR
VARTAK
503-ao [email protected] 1843-23.odt
Date: 2023.02.27
12:54:50 +0530
Prajakta Vartak
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 144 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1843 OF 2023
Kishan Bhima Jadhav ..Appellant
Vs.
Adil Dadibai Driver & Ors. ...Respondents
__________
Mr. Vivek Shukla with Ms. Trupti Gaikar and Ms. Priyanka Menon i/b.
Ms. Pragya Mishra for Appellant.
Mr. Javed Akhtar for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
__________
CORAM : G.S. KULKARNI, J.
DATE : FEBRUARY 24, 2023
P.C.:
1. Not on board. Taken on board on a praecipe being moved on
behalf of the Appellant.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for
respondent nos.1 and 2.
3. This appeal is filed assailing an order dated 18 February, 2023
passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai whereby ad-interim relief on
notice of motion as filed by the appellant has been rejected.
-------------------------
24 February, 2023
503-ao [email protected] 1843-23.odt
4. The appellant had moved the City Civil Court in the suit in
question inter alia praying for a relief to grant a perpetual prohibitory
injunction against the defendants from dispossessing the appellant from
the suit premises situated at 6-D, Sethna Hall, Opp. GST Bhuvan,
Mazgaon, Mumbai - 400 010, and to restrain the defendants from causing
any disturbance, breach of peace or nuisance to the peaceful existence and
business work of the appellant. This was the only relief as prayed for by
the appellant. The appellant moved a notice of motion praying for a
temporary injunction against the respondents, that the appellant be not
dispossessed. It appears that inter se between the respondents, there was a
dispute which was subject matter of the proceedings of L. E. & C. Suit No.
120/148 of 2012 as filed by M/s. Ahura Engineering & Company against
respondent no.3 and others before the Small Causes Court at Mumbai.
The said suit came to be decreed by the Small Causes Court. The decree
was sought to be executed by filing Execution Application No. 312 of
2016. The appellant claiming to be a sub-tenant of the judgment debtor
before the Small Causes Court, i.e. sub-tenant of respondent no.3 in the
present proceedings initiated to obstruct the decree. The appellant
accordingly, moved an application below Exhibit 41 in the execution
proceedings filed by the decree holders before the Small Causes Court
(Execution Application No. 312 of 2016). However, he failed to obtain
-------------------------
24 February, 2023
503-ao [email protected] 1843-23.odt
any ad-interim orders as clear from the order dated 21 February, 2023 as
passed by the Court executing the decree passed by the Small Causes
Court. As the appellant could not succeed in obtaining any orders in the
execution proceedings in his capacity as an obstructionist to the said
decree, he pursued the notice of motion in question and prayed for ad-
interim relief as noted above.
5. In my prima facie opinion, not only the notice of motion but also
the suit appears to be thoroughly misconceived. If at all any rights are to
be asserted by the appellant, they are necessarily in the capacity as an
obstructionist to the decree which is subject matter of adjudication before
the executing Court, for which he has already moved an application which
is subjudice and pending adjudication.
6. In the above premises, I do not find that any case is made out by the
appellant to interfere in the order passed by the City Civil Court. It is
accordingly rejected. No costs.
[G.S. KULKARNI, J.]
-------------------------
24 February, 2023
