[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The Board Of Trustees Of The Port Of ... vs Chotelal Ramnath on 21 January, 2026
2026:BHC-AS:3084
Sayyed 41-FA.1612.2012.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO.1612 OF 2012
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1813 OF 2012
The Board of Trustees of the
Port of Mumbai ...Appellant/Applicant
Versus
Chotelal Ramnath ...Respondent
_____________________________________________________
Mr. Ajai Fernandes a/w Ms. Nima Motiwalla, Ms. Janhavi Kandekar &
Ms. Anjali Kotecha i/by Motiwalla & Co. for the Appellant/Applicant.
None for the Respondent.
_____________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATE : 21 JANUARY 2026
ORAL ORDER:
1. This appeal is filed by the original defendant challenging the
order of the City Civil Court dated 7 February 2012, whereby the suit
filed by the respondent-plaintiff came to be decreed and the appellant-
defendant were restrained from interfering with or disturbing or taking
forcible possession of the suit premises.
2. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondent-plaintiff,
though name of the advocate is appearing on the cause-list. The appeal
being of the year 2012 is taken up for hearing
3. The learned counsel for the appellant-defendant states that
the learned Trial Court was in error in holding that the City Civil Court
has the jurisdiction to entertain the present suit. He submits that there
are series of judgments of this Court taking a contrary view which does
not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Trial
1 of 4
Sayyed 41-FA.1612.2012.doc
Judge. Insofar as, the issue of interpretation of bye-law no.9 is
concerned, he submits that the learned Judge has not considered Rule
9B in its completeness. He submits that the starting portion of the bye-
law no.9 itself is crystal clear that bye-law no.9 is applicable for removal
of construction or permission to be constructed any road, pathway etc.
He submits that this Court in the case of S. K. Parmanandan Vs. Board
of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai & Ors. in Writ Petition (L) No.3058 of
2017 has on a very identical fact situation interpreted bye-law no.9 and
decided the issue in favour of the appellant-defendant. He, however,
submits that the said decision of this Court was rendered after the
impugned judgment and, therefore, the Trial Judge did not have the
benefit. He further submitted that the issue no.2 which deals with suit
being bad on account of notice not being issued under Section 120 of
the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963 is also concluded by series of judgments
which were not pointed out to the learned Trial Court. He, therefore,
prayed in all fairness that even today, the respondent-plaintiff are not
present and, therefore, he has no objection, if the matter is remanded
back to the Trial Court for adjudication in the light of the decisions
referred to above.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant-defendant.
5. This appeal is of the year 2012. The respondent-plaintiff is not
present today, inspite of there being appearance shown on the cause-list
that the Vakalatnama having been filed by the advocate. The
respondent-plaintiff is in possession of the suit premises since 2012.
This matter is very old, and since the learned counsel for the appellant
has been fair to make a submission for remand, I wish to dispose of this
appeal.
2 of 4
Sayyed 41-FA.1612.2012.doc
6. The crucial issue in this appeal relates to interpretation of
bye-law no.9. The learned Trial Judge has gone on the premise that bye-
law no.9 applies to goods and not to suit property. This interpretation is
prima-facie contrary to the provisions of bye-law no.9 and the
subsequent decision of this Court in S. K. Parmanandan Vs. Board of
Trustees of the Port of Mumbai (supra). This decision was rendered in
2017. Therefore, in my view, since the Trial Court did not have the
benefit of this judgment and today respondent-plaintiff is absent, it
would be in the interest of justice that the matter is remanded back to
the Trial Court for de-novo adjudication after considering the
interpretation given to bye-law no.9 by this Court.
7. Insofar the other two issues are concerned i.e. whether the
City Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain such a suit and whether the
suit is bad in law for want of notice under Section 120 of the Major Port
Trusts Act, 1963 is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant
again reiterates that there are series of decisions of this Court in favour
of the appellant-defendant. However, he fairly states that these
judgments were not pointed out to the learned Trial Judge.
8. In my view, if what is stated by the learned counsel for the
appellant is correct then no prejudice would be caused to the parties, if
the matter is remanded back for de-novo consideration even on the
issue of maintainability of the suit and the effect of want of notice
under Section 120 of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. The learned Trial
Judge would consider all the decisions brought to his notice by both the
parties on these issues and decide these issues afresh.
9. In view of above, the impugned order dated 7 February 2012
is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the City
3 of 4
Sayyed 41-FA.1612.2012.doc
Civil Court for de-novo adjudication on all the issues afresh. It is made
clear that no new evidence will be recorded and based on the evidence
already recorded the parties will proceed with the suit.
10. The parties to appear before the City Civil Court on 16
February 2026 at 11:00 a.m. with the present order so that the learned
Trial Judge can fix up the date of hearing.
11. The parties will cooperate with the Trial Court in disposing of
the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any case on or before 31
December 2026.
12. The first appeal is disposed of in above terms. Consequently,
civil application does not survive and is disposed of.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]
Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 22/01/2026 11:20:16 4 of 4
