[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Abhay Ganpatsingh Singh Thakur vs Rajkishoresingh Kunjbiharsingh And ... on 10 February, 2026
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
43-IA-4395-2025-IA-5575-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4395 OF 2025
IN
SUIT NO. 854 OF 1982
ABHAY GANPATSINGH SINGH THAKUR )...APPLICANT
V/s.
RAJKISHORE SINGH KUNJBIHAR SINGH )
AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 5575 OF 2025
IN
SUIT NO. 854 OF 1982
REKHA SINGH )...APPLICANT
V/s.
RAJKISHORE SINGH KUNJBIHAR SINGH )
AND OTHERS )...RESPONDENTS
Mr.J.S.Kini a/w. Mr.Aum Kini i/by Sapna Krishnappa, Advocate for the
Applicant in IA/4395/2025.
Mr.Chaitanyaa Bhandari, Advocate for the Applicant in IA/5575/2025.
Mr.Amogh Singh i/by Mr.Anil Yadav, Advocate for the Defendant no.15.
Mr.Rohan Savant i/by Mr.Vitthal Sankpa, Advocate for the Respondents
no.6(a) to 6(c).
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
DATE : 10th FEBRUARY 2026
ARTI
VILAS
KHATATE
43-IA-4395-2025-IA-5575-2025.doc
P.C. :
1. Pursuant to order dated 3rd November 2025, today when the
matter is called out, Mr.Amol Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the
Defendant no.15 seeks to tender a reply to the Interim Application
No.5575 of 2025. Let the same be filed in the Registry. Let a copy of
the same be furnished to the learned Counsel for the Applicant.
Rejoinder, if any, in two weeks thereafter with a copy to the other side.
2. List on 17th March 2026.
3. Mr.Kini, learned Counsel for the Applicant in Interim Application
No.4395 of 2025 seeks a restraint on the development that would be
undertaken by the Respondents / parties to the Suit, submitting that
any creation of third party rights otherwise would be to the detriment
of the Interim Applicant.
4. Mr.Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Defendant no.15
and Mr.Savant, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents no.6(a)
to 6(c) submit that by an order of a Division Bench of this Court dated
3rd November 2025, the Respondents no.9 to 21, which include their
clients, have been directed as landlords to commence the work of
redevelopment of the three buildings being Kunj Niwas Building no.1,
43-IA-4395-2025-IA-5575-2025.doc
Building no.2 and Building no.3 at Sahakar Road, Jogeshwari (West),
Mumbai - 400 102, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a
period of six weeks and that if the Respondents do not start the work of
redevelopment of the concerned buildings, it will be presumed that the
said Respondents are not interested / keen in carrying out the
redevelopment of the concerned buildings and in that event, the
concerned Respondents i.e. MHADA and MCGM to take over the
redevelopment of the concerned buildings to be undertaken including
at the hands of the tenants as per law, however, keeping open all the
rights of the landlords as regard to the benefits of the development.
That, therefore, the process of redevelopment has already commenced
and the Interim Applicant is seeking a recall of the judgment and
decree dated 11th January 1990 after 36 years which will come in the
way of the order of the Division Bench passed by this Court.
5. Mr.Kini is aggrieved that despite the said properties being shown
as HUF properties, neither the Applicant nor his father, who was the
brother of the Plaintiff and the Defendant no.1 in Suit No.854 of 1982
and despite the son of the Defendant no.1 stating on oath in reply to
the Notice of Motion No.800 of 1992 in the said Suit that the Suit is
liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of parties for failing to implead
43-IA-4395-2025-IA-5575-2025.doc
the present Interim Applicant's father as a necessary party, the judgment
and decree in terms of the consent terms dated 11 th January 1990 came
to be passed in the said Suit without considering that the Interim
Applicant's father was also a coparcener in the HUF properties including
the Petition in respect whereof the Division Bench has passed the order.
6. The pleadings in these proceedings are complete and until this
Interim Application is decided after hearing the parties, this Court is at
the moment not inclined to interfere with the said judgment and decree
on the basis of the consent terms dated 11 th January 1990. However, in
view of the above submissions, on a prima facie basis, in order to protect
the interest of the Interim Applicant, this Court observes, subject to the
rights and contentions of the parties and subject to hearing the parties in
this Interim Application, that in the event the consent decree is modified
in favour of the Interim Applicant, the Interim Applicant would also
stand to benefit as a landlord with regard to the benefits of the
development, subject ofcourse to the Applicant also obtaining
appropriate orders suitably modifying the order dated 3 rd November
2025 of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.2509 of 2025.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
