[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Chandrakant L. Pujari And Ors. vs Mohammed Hasan Abdul Sattar Moti And ... on 15 December, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:55219
6-IA-7559-2024 C.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7559 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1831 OF 2024
Chandrakant L. Pujari And Ors. ...Applicants/
Appellants
SNEHA Versus
NITIN Mohammed Hasan Abdul Sattar Moti And Ors ...Respondents
CHAVAN
Digitally signed
by SNEHA ****
NITIN CHAVAN
Date:
2025.12.16
Ms. Jhanvee Joshi a/w Mr. Rahul Pujari, Mr. Vithoba Masurkar i/b
14:56:11 +0530
Rajesh Talekar for the Applicants/Appellants.
None for Respondents.
****
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 15th DECEMBER, 2025
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the Applicants. According to the
office note, Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 are duly served. None appears for
Respondents, despite service.
2. Application is filed seeking various reliefs including stay of
impugned decree. Since by the impugned decree, suit is dismissed,
there is no question of stay to dismissal. As such prayer of stay is
rejected.
3. Learned Counsel for the Applicants, at the outset sought leave
of the Court to amend and add the necessary prayer for permission to
carry out repairs. Leave granted. Prayer be added during the course of
the day as prayer clause (c-1).
6-IA-7559-2024 C.doc
4. The Applicants are original Plaintiffs in S.C. Suit No. 3795 of
2012 (H.C.Suit No. 1829/2012) filed against the Respondents seeking
declaration that general Power of Attorney ('PoA' for short) dated
20.07.2001 is subsisting and valid and binding on the Respondents, for
declaration that letter issued by the Respondents on 29.10.2009 for
termination, cancellation and revocation of PoA is illegal. Permanent
injunction is sought against the Respondents from terminating the
general PoA. Claim for damages is also made.
5. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 16.01.2024, the
suit has been dismissed.
6. During the pendency of the suit under orders dated
09.09.2014 and 03.09.2018, the Respondents were directed to maintain
status quo which was granted under order dated 18.09.2012 by this
Court. In addition, Respondents were restrained from alienating,
transferring, selling and/or encumbering and/or receiving any
consideration/compensation in relation to the suit property and were
further restrained from accepting surrender of tenancy or allowing
transfer of tenancy or collecting rent from the tenant.
7. On the date when the suit was dismissed (16.01.2024), under
a separate order below Exhibit-196, the Trial Court allowed application
for continuation of orders dated 09.09.2014 and 03.09.2018.
8. This Court on 12.04.2024 issued notices to the Respondents
and the protection granted by the Trial Court under order dated
16.01.2024 (below Exhibit-196) has been continued.
6-IA-7559-2024 C.doc
9. It is in these circumstances that the Applicants are seeking
continuation of the said interim protection and an additional prayer is
made seeking permission to repair the suit building, which is stated to
be in dilapidated condition.
10. Attention of the Court is invited to additional affidavit dated
23.07.2025. The same is taken on record. It is stated in the affidavit
that the suit building is about 60 years old and clear signs of damage
can be seen. It is stated that although the Appellants have done their
best to maintain the property over the years, they have not been able to
carry out full repairs because of the legal and administrative limitations.
It is also stated that in order to maintain the property effectively, urgent
repairs are necessary for which permission is necessary. It is further
stated that the condition of the building poses immediate threat to the
life of the Occupants. A certificate dated 02.07.2025 and detail
structural audit report dated 23.07.2025 are placed on record along
with photographs in support of the case that the suit building requires
immediate repairs. Said Report certifies that several parts of the
building are severely damaged and immediate repairs are required to
avoid loss of property and life to occupants and passers-by.
11. It is stated that the Applicants are occupying the suit building
apart from other tenants.
12. Nobody appears for Respondent, despite service, including
notice through news-paper publication under orders of this Court. No
reply is filed. However, it has to be borne in mind that suit has been
dismissed. Other occupants of the suit building are not before the Court.
6-IA-7559-2024 C.doc
13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, a case for
grant of permission to repair the suit building is made out, albeit
conditionally.
14. Accordingly, the application is disposed of by passing
following order which will operate during pendency of appeal.
(i) The order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Trial
Court below Exhibit-196 shall continue to operate during the
pendency of the appeal.
(ii) The Appellants/ Applicants are permitted to carry
out repairs and maintenance work of the suit building, at their
cost with permission of and subject to compliance with
applicable Rules of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
as also subject to complying with any other permission/s that
may be required under law.
(iii) The repair work undertaken by the Applicants shall
be without prejudice to rights and contentions of both sides
and the Applicants will not claim any equity for the cost
incurred.
15. Interim Application is disposed of in above terms.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
