Bombay High Court
Mr. Ramdev Rangappa Kulal vs General Manager (Best), Mumbai And Anr. on 30 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:32361
14 FA-151-2025 C.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by
HUSENBASHA
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 10438 OF 2025
RAHAMAN NADAF
NADAF
Date:
2025.07.31
WITH
12:00:15 +0530
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 9371 OF 2024
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 151 OF 2025
Mr. Ramdev Rangappa Kulal ...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
General Manager (BEST), Mumbai And Anr. ...Respondents
****
Mr. Avinash Kango for Applicant/Appellant.
Ms. Heena Shaikh i/by M. V. Kini & Co. for the Respondents.
****
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 30th JULY, 2025
P.C. :
1. These applications are filed by the Appellant/original Plaintiff
seeking interim injunction restraining the Respondents from
obstructing or interfering with the Plaintiff's alleged possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. A prayer for amendment is also made
in averments and prayer clause. Proposed amended prayer is also
same prayer, in essence, of restraining the Respondents from
disturbing the alleged possession of the Applicant, from running
canteen and for an order of status quo.
2. Learned advocate for the Applicant has taken the Court
through the plaint, written statement and relevant portions of the
oral evidence as well as certain documents produced on record and
prayed for interim protection.
14 FA-151-2025 C.doc
3. Learned advocate for the Respondent (BEST) has vehemently
opposed the applications contending that the Applicant/Plaintiff has
no semblance of right to seek any relief in respect of suit property,
which belongs to the Respondent (BEST) and the present suit is filed
after eviction order was passed against the Applicant by following
due process of law.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. The applicant is original Plaintiff who filed the suit for
injunction simplicitor in respect of suit property which is initially
described to be situated on CTS No.962. The description of the
property was later on amended and CTS No.958 has been introduced.
It is the case of the Applicant that he was inducted on the suit
property by Airport Authority of India ('AAI', for short) and entire
claim of the applicant is based on an NOC dated 28.12.1994.
Admittedly, apart from this document, there is no document
produced by the Applicant in support of the his claim and his right to
occupy the suit property. The suit is filed only for the purpose of
injunction simplicitor. No declaration is sought.
6. The Trial Court has held vide Issue Nos.1 to 4 that the
Applicant did not prove that the AAI allotted the suit property to the
applicant, alleged obstruction is not proved, suit property is not
properly described and Applicant is not entitled to injunction. It is
further held that the suit property is not properly described and
therefore, the Applicant has been held not entitled for perpetual
14 FA-151-2025 C.doc
injunction.
7. It is cardinal principal of law that for grant of perpetual
injunction, where prayer is that the plaintiff should not be disturbed
in his peaceful possession of 'the premises', description of 'the
premises' has to be free from doubt and the plaintiff must establish
some right in the premises. Otherwise the Court runs a risk of
granting injunction against defendant unnecessarily and about
property which is not discernible or clearly located. It is trite that
such injunction should not be granted.
8. Viewed in the light of this legal position, when the impugned
judgment is perused, following aspects emerge :
(i) The entity from which the applicant claims to be inducted i.e.
AAI is not made a party Defendant and it is conveniently kept away.
(ii) The suit property is not properly described as required under
Order VII Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The Plaintiff has not
stated boundaries of the suit property.
(iii) The Plaintiff sought change of property number from CTS
No.962 to 958, which itself indicates that the Plaintiff is not sure on
which CTS, he claims injunction.
(iv) The document of NOC from AAI dated 28.12.1994, which is
the sole basis of claim, is not produced in original. Its copy is
produced and its contents are reproduced by the Trial Court in the
judgment. It indicates that is it an NOC to operate canteen without
14 FA-151-2025 C.doc
describing the location or property on which canteen was permitted
to be conducted. The Trial Judge considered this aspect in para 22 of
the judgment.
(v) No officer of the AAI is examined in support of the case of the
Applicant. There is no document apart from the said copy of NOC to
form basis of the claim made by the Applicant.
(vi) Respondent BEST has examined its executing engineer
establishing that CTS No.958 (part) admeasuring 4773 sq. mtrs. is
handed over to the Respondent by Municipal Corporation in 1991.
Respondent statutory body is found to be owner of larger property
CTS No. 958. The report submitted by officer of the Defendant after
removing the structure of the applicant on 06.04.2011 is produced on
record at Exh.66. Further effort of the Applicant to start the his
activity has resulted into removal of the tea stall, about which report
is placed on record at Exh.67. The Applicant's structure has been
seized and demolished 4-5 times. No prayer of restoration has been
made.
(vii) Trial Court has concluded on the basis of documents produced
that the Applicant was evicted and dispossessed from suit premises
prior to institution of suit, under departmental process of law.
(viii) In view of above, the suit has been dismissed.
9. From the documents shown to this Court, it is not seen that the
Applicant had any better case. No document of allotment in favour of
the Applicant or any other document showing even a semblance of
14 FA-151-2025 C.doc
right as provided under law, is shown to this Court.
10. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the applications
seeking interim injunction. The applications are accordingly
dismissed.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
