Shivam Rajesh Singh Thr Its Ca Mrs. ... vs Kesley Building No. 2, Co-Op. Hos Soc. ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 3111 Bom

Bombay High Court

Shivam Rajesh Singh Thr Its Ca Mrs. ... vs Kesley Building No. 2, Co-Op. Hos Soc. ... on 26 March, 2026

Author: Milind N. Jadhav

Bench: Milind N. Jadhav

                                                                          8.AO.651.2025.doc

Ajay

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                         APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 651 OF 2025
                                       WITH
                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13577 OF 2025
                                        IN
                         APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 651 OF 2025

       Rajesh Singh and Anr.                      .. Appellants
             Versus
       Kesley Building No.2, Co-operative Housing
       Society and Anr.                           .. Respondents

                                       WITH
                         APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 652 OF 2025
                                       WITH
                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13578 OF 2025
                                        IN
                         APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 652 OF 2025

       Rajesh Singh and Anr.                      .. Appellants
             Versus
       Kesley Building No.2, Co-operative Housing
       Society and Anr.                           .. Respondents

                                       WITH
                         APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 653 OF 2025
                                       WITH
                       INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13580 OF 2025
                                        IN
                         APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 653 OF 2025

       Shivam Rajesh Singh                        .. Appellant
             Versus
       Kesley Building No.2, Co-operative Housing
       Society and Anr.                           .. Respondents

                                 ....................
        Mr. Vishwajeet Kapse, Advocate i/by Mr. Rajesh Singh a/w. Mr.
         Rahul Singh, Mr. Ashish Singh, Mr. Ranjan Singh, Kamal Mishra
         and Sauran Singh, Advocates for Appellants.
        Mr. Rajesh B. Parab, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
                                         ....................

                                                                                       1 of 4


          ::: Uploaded on - 26/03/2026                        ::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 23:49:37 :::
                                                                 8.AO.651.2025.doc


                                    CORAM       : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

                                    DATE        : MARCH 26, 2026.

P.C.:

1. Heard Mr. Kapse, learned Advocate for Appellants and Mr.

Parab, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1.

2. There are two practicing Advocates at the bar who are the

litigants before me. Appellant before me is the Ex-Secretary of the Co-

operative Housing Society. Respondent before me is the current

Secretary of the Co-operative Housing Society. Society has gone in for

redevelopment. It has 60 members.

3. Grievance is raised by Appellant who is the original Plaintiff

by filing Suit in the Trial Court seeking disclosure and entitlement of

redevelopment area as per approved plan.

4. According to Appellant - Plaintiff, the entitlement which has

been finalised by the Society as on date is at a reduced area as

compared to the sanctioned plan which were negotiated previously by

the Plaintiff when he was the Secretary.

5. Be that as it may and whatever is the Suit proceedings filed,

the law is equal for everybody. All members of the Society will be

entitled to their respective legitimate areas strictly according to law

and in terms of the Development Agreement and sanctioned /

approved plan.

2 of 4

8.AO.651.2025.doc

6. The dichotomy raised by Appellant - Plaintiff is between

sanctioned plan and approved plan which this Court fails to

understand. According to the learned Advocate for Plaintiff -

Appellant, the sanctioned plan at the inception stage when the Society

building was built would give a higher area.

7. Mr. Parab, learned Advocate appearing for the Society is

directed by the Court to give the list of all 60 members alongwith the

redevelopment area allocated in respect of them as against the area

held by them as per the plans which are approved by the Society and

considered by the Society for redevelopment and the Development

Agreement. After the same is given to the Court, it shall be shared with

the learned Advocate for Appellant - Plaintiff and his objection will be

thereafter heard.

8. Needless to state that the statement which shall be given by

Mr. Parab will be based upon the approved plan which shall be

annexed thereto and the Development Agreement and it shall be filed

on Affidavit.

9. Needless to state that in the interregnum if the Society or Mr.

Parab can give inspection of the sanctioned plan / approved plan on

the basis of which redevelopment area has been finalised to all

members to Mr. Kapse, the same shall be considered by Mr. Kapse and

accordingly the Court shall be apprised on the next adjourned date if

3 of 4

8.AO.651.2025.doc

any further grievance remains. Without prejudice to the rights and

contentions of both the sides the aforesaid direction has been passed.

10. Stand over to 9th April 2026. To be placed under the caption

'First on Board'.

                                                                             [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

     Ajay


AJAY       TRAMBAK
TRAMBAK    UGALMUGALE
UGALMUGALE Date:
            2026.03.26
            19:10:00 +0530




                                                                                                            4 of 4