Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Namrata Jaiprakash Tiwari vs Smt. Saveetha Kumar Devendra And ... on 9 November, 2022

Author: M. S. Karnik

Bench: M. S. Karnik

                                                                          2.ia.19296-22.doc

                 PMB
                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
         Digitally
         signed by

PRADNYA
         PRADNYA
         MAKARAND
MAKARAND BHOGALE
                                INTERIM APPLICATION NO.19296 OF 2022
BHOGALE  Date:
         2022.11.09
         15:40:22
                                                 IN
         +0530
                                  APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.433 OF 2021
                       Namrata Jaiprakash Tiwari             ..Applicant
                            vs.
                       Saveetha Kumar Devendra and anr. ..Respondents
                                                ------------
                       Ms. Usha R. Tiwari a/w Ms. Manshi Jain for applicant.
                       Mr. Hare Krishna Mishra for respondent no.2.
                                                ------------
                                            CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
                                              DATE    : NOVEMBER 9, 2022.

                       P.C. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant.

2. This is an application made by the applicant for leave to challenge the interim order dated 04.03.2020 passed by the City Civil Court in Notice of Motion No.1384 of 2019 in S.C. Suit No.1531 of 2018 impugned in the Appeal From Order. It is the contention of learned counsel for the applicant that during the pendency of the suit between the respondent no.1 and respondent no.2, the applicant purchased the suit premises from the respondent no.2 for a valid consideration. Respondent no.2 never informed the 1

2.ia.19296-22.doc applicant about the pending proceedings. Learned counsel submits that there was no order of injunction operating during the pendency of the suit. It is the submission of learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order affects the rights of the applicant and hence seeks leave to file the Appeal From Order. In support of her submission that such an Appeal is maintainable at the instance of the applicant, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of My Palace Mutually Aided Co-operative Society vs. B. Mahesh and others1. My attention is invited to paragraphs 29, 30 and 31 of such decision.

3. Learned counsel appears for the legal heirs of respondent no.2.

4. Issue notice to the respondent no.1, returnable on 14.12.2022. In addition to the Court's notice, private notice is permitted.

5. Till next date, there shall be an ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b).

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) 1 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1063 2