[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Raoji Rajesh Hulsure And Another vs Apna Ghar-A- Co-Operative Housing ... on 26 March, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
9.AO.191.2026 & 11.IA.978.2026.doc
Ajay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
(9) APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 191 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 976 OF 2026
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 191 OF 2026
Raoji Rajesh Hulsure and Anr. Appellants
.. (Orig. Plaintiffs)
Versus
Apna Ghar "A" Co-operative Housing Society Respondents
Limited and Ors. .. (Orig. Defendants)
WITH
(11) INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 978 OF 2026
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO. 38016 OF 2025
Raoji Rajesh Hulsure and Anr. Applicants /
.. Appellants
IN THE MATTER BETWEEN:
Raoji Rajesh Hulsure and Anr. .. Appellants
Versus
Apna Ghar "A" Co-operative Housing Society
Limited .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate appearing through VC and Ms. Swati
Singh, Advocates i/by M/s. Kumar & Associates for Appellants.
Mr. Shubham S. Dubey, Advocate i/by Mrs. Tanuja Singh for
Respondent - Society.
....................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : MARCH 26, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kumar, learned Advocate appearing through VC
alongwith Ms. Singh who is appearing in the Court on behalf of the
Appellants who are the original Plaintiffs in the Suit proceedings and
1 of 7
9.AO.191.2026 & 11.IA.978.2026.doc
Mr. Dubey, learned Advocate for Respondent - Society.
2. A parallel Suit has been filed by the Society in the City Civil
Court seeking restraint on the above Appellants.
3. Mr. Kumar has drawn my attention to the twin orders passed
on the same date i.e. 13.10.2025 by the learned Trial Court separately
in the Notice of Motion / Injunction Application filed by the respective
parties. He would submit that in so far as the interim relief in respect
of his clients Mr. Hulsure and Mr. Kureshi is concerned, the same has
been rejected outrightly wheres in so far as the Society's interim relief
is concerned, the same has been partly allowed.
4. He would draw my attention to the order passed partly in
favour of the Society whereby there is an injunction granted in favour
of the Society restraining his clients from entering into the Suit flat. He
would submit that the suit flat is nomenclatured as Flat No.405 in the
Society's building. He would submit that initially this suit flat
belonged to one Mr. Sachin Hande. He would submit that by virtue of
a registered Agreement for Sale, copy of which is appended at page
No.222, the flat was sold and transferred by Mr. Sachin Hande to Mrs.
Sunita Rajesh Hulsure and Mr. Rajesh D. Hulsure. Next he would
draw my attention to the document which is another registered
Agreement for Sale appended at page No.275.
2 of 7
9.AO.191.2026 & 11.IA.978.2026.doc
5. The first document transferred the flat from Mr. Hande to
Mr. and Mrs. Hulsure who are the parents of Mr. Kumar's client Mr.
Raoji Rajesh Hulsure. They expired in the interregnum. There is a
release deed by sisters of Mr. Raoji Rajesh Hulsure in his favour, copies
and documents which are all appended to the proceedings. In that
view of the matter, Mr. Raoji Rajesh Hulsure has transferred the flat by
way of a registered Agreement for Sale dated 04.03.2024 to Mr.
Mohammad Asif Ayas Kureshi. Be that as it may, in so far as the issue
regarding grant of injunction in favour of Society is concerned, it prima
facie stems from the fact that there is a humongous amount which is
outstanding towards arrears of Society dues for the last more than 12
years. A figure of Rs.10 lacs is reflected in the impugned order. One of
the objection raised by the Society is that its no objection ought to have
been procured by Mr. Raoji Rajesh Hulsure before transfer of the
subject flat to Mr. Kureshi. That in my opinion is not required to be
gone into at this stage. The lis between the parties is not in respect to
entitlement which is also noted by this Court.
6. From the reading of the impugned order dated 13.10.2025
passed in favour of the Society, it is seen that the Court has branded
Mr. Raoji Rajesh Hulsure and Mr. Mohammad Asif Ayas Kureshi as
strangers and opined that they have no concern with the subject flat
and they are trying the enter the subject flat illegally and forcefully.
3 of 7
9.AO.191.2026 & 11.IA.978.2026.doc
7. From the record as also reading of the impugned order prima
facie it is seen that there may be some dereliction on the part of Mr.
Raoji Hulsure and Mr. Mohammad Kureshi is not apprising the Society
the purpose of transfer of the subject flat and those derelictions are
prima facie seen by this Court also, but still at the end of the day the
reason because of which the impugned order has been primarily
passed is in view of the humongous amount of outstanding arrears
amount to the tune of Rs.10 lacs pending towards maintenance
amount in respect of the subject flat. The Society is absolutely correct
when it states that its dues have to the cleared before any transfer.
This Court will have to support the Society. This Court will have to
ensure that all dues of the Society are fully cleared by the parties if
they want to and wish to enter the suit flat. Question is posed to Mr.
Kumar to furnish details of the amount of Rs.10 lacs i.e. outstanding
amount which is reflected in the impugned orders and he would
submit that till today the Society has not given any details whatsoever
to him.
8. Mr. Dubey, learned Advocate appears for the Society. He
would submit that he has received instructions to appear for the
Society, but he is handicapped because he does not have the papers of
the case today. He would also submit that he would need to take
appropriate instructions regarding the outstanding amounts.
4 of 7
9.AO.191.2026 & 11.IA.978.2026.doc
9. Be that as it may, the Society is directed to immediately
place on record the details of the outstanding amounts in respect of the
subject flat No.405 indicating proper break-up of principal and interest
amount within a period one week from today. The Secretary and
Chairman of the Society are directed to give appropriate instructions to
Mr. Dubey who shall place the same on Affidavit to be filed on behalf
of the Society with proper calculation.
10. In the meanwhile, Mr. Kumar is directed by the Court to take
appropriate instructions from his clients Mr. Hulsure and Mr. Kureshi
to show their bonafides. Though this Court finds that an amount of
Rs.10 lacs is shown as outstanding, it would primarily involve interest
also.
11. In that view of the matter, Mr. Kumar makes a statement
that if he is allowed to deposit an amount of Rs.5 lacs by Demand
Draft (DD) to show his bonafides and if his clients are in a position to
deposit the said amount, then he would persuade the Court to vacate
the injunction which has been granted in operative clause No.2 of the
order dated 13.10.2025 in Notice of Motion No.2016 of 2024.
12. After considering the request made by Mr. Kumar and
perusing the record of the case and the various documents which are
appended by the parties, I am of the opinion that if the outstanding
dues of the Society are fully cleared by Mr. Kumar's clients, then there
5 of 7
9.AO.191.2026 & 11.IA.978.2026.doc
should not be any impediment in allowing them to enter the flat.
13. Needless to state that one of the objections raised by Mr.
Dubey that Mr. Hulsure and/or Mr. Kureshi are yet not members of the
Society but that would be in the realm of technicality which is
otherwise curable.
14. Be that as it may, the Society cannot be expected to sit in
Appeal over the decisions which are taken by the Court. The Society
being a Cooperative Housing Society will have to defend its substantive
right in preserving / operating the flat on behalf of its members.
Undoubtedly as observed above, there is dereliction on the part of Mr.
Hulsure and Mr. Kureshi is not informing the Society at the right time,
but still looking at the fact that there are registered documents, this
Court is of the opinion that if the Society's dues are fully cleared, there
should be not any impediment and in that case only the Court will
consider vacating the injunction order, subject to the Appellants
following the due process of law for effecting transfer.
15. In that view of the matter, until the bonafides are shown by
Mr. Hulsure and Mr. Kureshi by depositing the outstanding amount of
Rs.5 lacs in this Court, the injunction order dated 13.10.2025 passed in
Notice of Motion No.2016 of 2024 shall remain in place. The said
amount shall be deposited if they desire to deposit by way of DD only
on the next date.
6 of 7
9.AO.191.2026 & 11.IA.978.2026.doc
16. Mr. Kumar informs the Court that within one week if the
Society informs the outstanding statement of the arrears amount, it
will enable and aid Mr. Hulsure and Mr. Kureshi to take a considered
decision.
17. In that view of the matter, Society is directed to give entire
outstanding statement without recourse to Court on Affidavit directly
to Mr. Kumar and file the Affidavit in Court. Mr. Kumar will take
appropriate instructions and show his bonafides by depositing the
amount of Rs.5 lacs by DD, if he seeks to vacate the injunction order
which has been granted by the learned Trial Court, but that will be
subject to further orders passed by Court regarding the outstanding
amounts pay payable.
18. Stand over to 9th April, 2026. To be placed under the caption
'First on Board'.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Ajay
AJAY AJAY TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date: 2026.03.26
19:29:47 +0530
7 of 7
