Case Details

Ms Kestrel Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Thro Rajesh Jawaharlal Gemnani Vs Manoharlal Lachmandas Gaja

Case Details

casenoCase TypeM.C.A.
casenoFiling Number1686/2018
casenoRegistration Number65/2018
caseno Filing Date27-07-2018
hearingRegistration Date27-07-2018
hearingFirst Hearing Date27th July 2018
dateDecision Date12th February 2020
casestatusCase StatusCase Disposed
courtCourt Number and Judge8-District Judge 1 And Addl.Sessions Jude, Kalyan;
natureNature of DisposalContested--Dismissed;

Petitioners & Respondents

contactsPetitioner

Chandrabhan Puranram Singh, Ravi Gulabrao Bhanse, Jalamsingh Babusingh Rajpurohit, Ms Kestrel Infras Show more..

contactsPetitioner Advocate

P. I. Higorani;

contacts Respondent Name

Manoharlal Lachmandas Gaja, Ramesh Lachmandas Gaja, Mohini Hiralal Visa Thro Sunita Deepak Vyas, Sun Show more..

Order Details

orderdate Order Date27-09-2019 documents

                                                                                           ORDER BELOW EXH.1 IN  M.C.A. NO.65/2018 (CNR­MHTH06­002684 ­2018) The appellant is absent when called out till 4.00 pm. No application for adjournment filed on record on behalf of the appellant.  It is seen from the record that the the appellant is absent since 25.1.19.  The appeal is pending for last one and half year. It seems that the appellant is not interested in proceeding the matter for   further  progress   in   the  matter.    However,   in   the   interest  of justice one chance is accorded to the appellant for advancing final argument on the next date, else the appeal will  be dismissed by invoking the provisions of Order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.  Kalyan        (S. D. Bhagat) Date: 27/09/2019          Ad­hoc District Judge­1, Kalyan 

orderdate Order Date10-02-2020 documents

1 Order below Exh.1 in No. Misc. Civil Appeal No.65/2018 (CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018) 1] Matter is posted for final disposal of the MCA.  It is seen that appellant   no.1   Chandrabhan   Singh   is   attending   the   court proceedings.    He has argued  in person.    It   is  also seen that his Advocate has moved 'no instruction pursis'.   Subsequently he has filed his written notes of arguments.  However, on considering the matter it   is seen that there  is  no communication from appellant nos.2 to 5 that they have authorized appellant no.1 to argue on their behalf.  In such circumstances, without clear reference to that behalf  matter  cannot  be decided  finally.    Hence,  appellant  no.1 Chandrabhan Singh to communicate about this fact so as to take necessary steps with respect to appellant nos.2 to 5. Kalyan.                           (V. S. Malkalpatte­Reddy) 10.02.2020                                      Ad­hoc District Judge 2       Kalyan.

orderdate Order Date11-02-2020 documents

1 Order below Exh.1 in Misc. Civil Appeal No.65/2018 (CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018) 1] Today appellant mentioned the matter at 11.30 a.m.  He was shown   the   order   passed   below   Exh.1   on   which   appellant Chandrabhan Singh submits  that none of the earlier Courts had told him that he has to get authority of other appellants.  He also contends that he has been cheated by his Advocate and has sought time   to  get   the  authority  of  other  appellants.    On  his   say,   the matter was adjourned on 12.02.2020.   2] At about 3.30 p.m. appellant Chandrabhan Singh mentioned that   other   appellants   i.e.   appellant   nos.2   to   5   are   appearing through their Advocate B.R. Singh and he has filed pursis on record that they do not want to proceed with this case nor want to give any evidence   in   the  above matter.    Proceedings   reflect   that   the appeal has been filed by appellant Chandrabhan Singh along with appellant  nos.2   to  5.    Advocate   for   the   respondents  attend   the Court at 5.00 p.m. and this fact was brought to his notice.  Hence, this note.   Kalyan.                           (V. S. Malkalpatte­Reddy) 11.02.2020                                      Ad­hoc District Judge­1       Kalyan.

Final Order Judgement

orderdateOrder Date12-02-2020 documents
   .....1.....           Judgment in M.   C.A No.65/2018                                                                                                           CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018. Received on   :  20.07.2018 Registered on :  21.07.2018 Decided on     : 12.02.2020 Duration      :   1Y. 6Ms. 23Ds.          IN THE COURT OF AD­HOC DISTRICT JUDGE­1, KALYAN. AT : KALYAN (Presided over by V. S. Malkalpatte­Reddy) Misc. Civil Appeal No.65/2018         Exhibit No.   (CNR­MHTH06­002684­2018) 1] Shri Chandrabhan Puranram Singh,      Hindu Adult, Aged about 46 years,      Occupation ­ Business,      R/at. Flat No.401, Shri Vijay CHS,      Prajpe Chawl, Near Shiv Mandir,      Ambernath, Dist. Thane. 2] Shri Ravi Gulabrao Bhanse,      Adult, Aged about 54 years,      Occupation ­ Business,      R/at. Near Block A­332/664,       Kurla Camp, Ulhasnagar ­ 4. 3] Shri Jalamsingh Babusingh Rajpurohit,      Aged about 32 years,      Occupation ­ Business,      R/at. B­303, Swanand Apartment,      B­Cabin Road, Shivaji Chowk,      Ambernath. .....2..... Judgment in M.   C.A No.65/2018                                                                                                          CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018. 4] M/s. Kestrel Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.      Shri Rajesh Jawaharlal Gemnani,      Aged about 50 years,       Occupation ­ Business,      Office at : Kestrel Pride, Hira Ghat,      Opp. Petrol Pump, Ulhasnagar ­ 4. 5] M/s. Sai Enterprises,      Through its partner       Smt. Vidhi Jeetu Dhanwani,      Aged about 34 years,       Occupation ­ Business,      Flat No.201, Baba Sewadas Apartment,      Opp. Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation,      Ulhasnagar ­ 3. ..... Appellants      Versus 1] Shri Manoharlal Lachmandas Gaja,      Aged about 66 years, Occu. Priest, 2] Ramesh Lachmandas Gaja,      Aged about 60 years, Occu. Priest,      Both R/off. 91, Tantpura Road,      1st Floor, Mumbai ­ 400 009. 3] Mohini Hiralal Visa,      Aged about 70 years, Occu. Housewife,      Through Smt. Sunita Deepak Vyas,      R/off. Flat No.108, Modi Apartment,      L & T Road, Dahisar (W), Mumbai. 4] Sunita Deepak Vyaas,      Aged about 56 years, Occu. Housewife,      R/off. Flat No.108, Modi Apartment,      L & T Road, Dahisar (W), Mumbai.    .....3.....           Judgment in M.   C.A No.65/2018                                                                                                           CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018. 5] Karuna Sunil Gaja,      Aged about 51 years, Occu. Housewife, 6] Shruti Sunil Gaja,      Aged about 12 years, Occu. Student, 7] Chirag Sunil Gaja,      Aged about 10 years, Occu. Student,      5 to 7 R/off. 91, Tantpura Road,      1st Floor, Mumbai ­ 400 009.      Respondent nos.2 to 5 represented by C.A.      Shri Manoharlal Lachmandas Gaja,      R/off. 91, Tantpura Road, 1st Floor,      Mumbai ­ 400 009.       ..... Respondents Appellants in person. Shri K.G. Nalawade, Ld. Advocate for Respondents. Appeal under Order 43 R.1 of Code of   Civil Procedure against the Order dated  21.06.2018   passed   below   Exh.102   in   Regular Civil Suit No.238/2012 by Civil  Judge, JD, Ulhasnagar. ­:  ORAL JUDGMENT  :­ (Delivered on this  12th day of February, 2020) 1] This  Misc.  Civil  Appeal   is  directed against   the  order passed below Exh.102 in Regular Civil Suit No.238/2012 by Ld. Civil   Judge,   J.D.,   Ulhasnagar   on   21.06.2018   by   which   the application   filed   by   the   respondents   for   appointment   of   Court .....4..... Judgment in M.   C.A No.65/2018                                                                                                          CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018. Commissioner came to be allowed. Facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are as under : [For the sake of brevity and convenience, the parties hereinafter   will   be   referred   as   per   their   original   status   in   the Regular  Civil  Suit  No.238/2012.  Accordingly,   appellants   in   this appeal will be addressed as “defendants” and the respondents will be addressed as “plaintiffs”]. 2] plaintiffs had moved an application for interim relief at Exh.5.    In the mean time defendants had moved an application under section 9­A of the Code of Civil Procedure at Exh.33. The Say   was   filed   at   Exh.37.   Thereafter,   plaintiffs   moved   an application under section 9­A(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure at Exh.47.   As the defendants were trying to start the construction work they did not file their say earlier, hence, the application was ordered to be heard without say. Defendants moved an application to set aside the said order which was allowed.   Defendants gave oral   and   written   undertaking   that   they   will   not   continue   the construction which was recorded by the Court.  plaintiffs contend that  defendants  were  not  obeying   the  undertaking.  They  made complaint to the concerned police station.  They have filed various photographs   showing   the   work   done   by   the   defendants   which reflects that defendants were not obeying the orders.     .....5.....           Judgment in M.   C.A No.65/2018                                                                                                           CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018. 3] The application under section 9­A(2) of   the Code of Civil Procedure was disposed of by observing that defendants have given   undertaking   that   they   will   not   carry   out   any   kind   of construction.   Even   then   defendants   are   committing   breach. plaintiff   no.1   is   an   aged   person.     He   is   residing   at   Mumbai. Defendants are taking advantage of the said fact.   He has moved application for police aid.   Hence, it is necessary to appoint local inspection of the suit  property by way of  appointment of Court Commissioner  in order to  inspect the suit  property whether the nature of the suit property as seen in the photographs filed by the plaintiffs for the first time at Exh.56, 62 is the same as on date. The inspection will help the Court in elucidating the subject matter of the dispute which will be helpful for trial.   Hence, prayed that local inspection of the suit property be made.   4] Say   was   filed   by   the   defendants   wherein   it   is contended that, there  is no dispute regarding the boundaries of plaintiffs and defendants.   None of the photographs are admitted by them.   plaintiffs are trying to collect evidence through Court Commissioner. That the photographs are conclusive proof.  Hence, prayed that the application be rejected.   5] Being aggrieved by said order, this Misc. Civil Appeal is preferred on  the grounds  that   the Ld.  Trial  Court  has  failed to appreciate   that   there   are   many   other   judgments   which   clearly .....6..... Judgment in M.   C.A No.65/2018                                                                                                          CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018. show that appointment of Court Receiver is very harsh remedy.  If the   allegation   made   by   the   respondents   and   the   photographs shows violation in that case fresh Court Commissioner has been appointed.   The Ld. Civil Judge has exceeded his jurisdiction and has put seal on the premises due to which his business has come to stand   still.   The   Ld.   Trial   Court   has   wrongly   concluded   that plaintiffs are having excellent chance to succeed.   Plaintiffs have not filed any document of ownership. Photographs reflects that it is   ground   plus   four   floors   and   its   valuation   is   Rs.80,00,000/­. However,   plaintiffs   have   valued   the   suit   at   Rs.3,05,000/­. Documents   produced   by   the   plaintiffs   i.e.   death   certificate   of Lachman Lundiram reflects   the  name as  Lachmandas  Lundiram Gaja  even   the  power  of  attorney  dated  09.12.2011  reflects   the same. No address proof has been filed to reflect that in the year 1971 plaintiffs are residing in the suit property. The Trial Court has   failed  to appreciate   that  defendants  have obtained building plan sanctioned in the year 2013 for construction of multi storied building which reflects that they are in possession.   6] Defendant   No.1   Chandrabhan   Singh   has   filed   his written argument at Exh.19 and heard Ld. Counsel Shri Nalawade for plaintiffs at length.  7] After   considering   the   rival   submissions,   following points arise for my consideration to which I give my findings along    .....7.....           Judgment in M.   C.A No.65/2018                                                                                                           CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018. with the reasons discussed hereinafter :­ POINTS FINDINGS 1] 2] Whether   plaintiffs   are   entitled   for appointment   of   Court   Receiver   with respect to the suit property Whether   the   Ld.   Civil   Judge,   J.D. Ulhasnagar   has   erred   in   passing   the Court Receiver's Order ? .. In the affirmative. .. In the negative. 3] What order ? .. As per final order. ­:  R E A S O N S  :­ As to point no.1 : 8] I have perused the written arguments of the defendant no.1  It is contended by him that plaintiffs have not contended as to how the Ld. Ulhasnagar Court has jurisdiction to deal with the suit   in   which   suit   property   as   per   government   valuation   is Rs.85,00,000/­.  During the pendency of application under section 9­A of CPC the receivers application has been decided which is illegal. Various grievance has been raised against plaintiff's lawyer and the communication made.  9] During  the  course  of   the  proceedings   it   is   seen  that Advocate   of   the   appellants/defendants   has   filed   no   instruction pursis. Subsequently by passing order below Exh.1 defendant no.1 .....8..... Judgment in M.   C.A No.65/2018                                                                                                          CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018. was   called   upon   as   to   whether   defendant   nos.2   to   5   have authorized   him   to   argue   on   their   behalf.     On   the   same   day Advocate for appellant nos.2 to 5 has appeared and filed pursis that they do not want to proceed with the case.  Hence, this appeal is decided at the instance of appellant/defendant no.1.   10] At the out set it is made clear that grievance made by the   defendants   with   respect   to   their   lawyer   and   that   of   the plaintiffs cannot be the part of the present appeal, hence, the only aspect which the defendants contend is that the application of the receiver cannot be decided when application under section 9­A is pending.    11] In order to decide this appeal certain facts are required to be noted which led to filing of the application of appointment of receiver.   It is seen from the paper book that plaintiffs had filed interim injunction application at Exh.5. During the subsistence of this   application   defendants   have   moved   an   application   under section   9­A   of   Code   of   Civil   Procedure.     Pursuant   to   which plaintiffs have moved an application under section 9­A(2) and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for grant of interim relief.   12] Advocate for the plaintiffs has filed certified copies of the proceedings wherein it is seen that undertaking was given on 21.03.2017   by   the   defendants   that   they   will   desist   from    .....9.....           Judgment in M.   C.A No.65/2018                                                                                                           CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018. proceeding with   the  construction over   the   suit  property   till   the next   date.   Again   on   06.04.2017   defendants   have   moved   an undertaking that till the adjudication of application under section 9­A of Code of Civil Procedure they will stall the construction.  On perusing the order below Exh.47 under section 9­A(2) of Code of Civil Procedure it is seen that in view of the undertaking given by the  Advocate   for   the  defendants  at  Exh.78   the  application  was disposed off.   On 27.06.2017 plaintiffs moved an application that defendants  are not  obeying the order  of   the Court,  hence,   it   is required to modify the orders passed below Exh.47.   Status­quo order was passed on that application.  13] Later   on   application   for   appointment   of   court commissioner has been moved on 20.04.2017 wherein the entire facts have been stated which led to filing of the application.   The said   application   was   allowed.   The   Court   Commissioner   has reported that on perusing the photographs filed by the plaintiffs at Exh.50/4 the land was plain, there was no excavation, bore­well work was done.  On visiting the spot on 03.06.2017 he saw entire construction of ground floor is completed, 24 columns are filled, 8 columns  of   3   inches  of   steel   rod,   construction  of  underground water tank is completed, two columns at the gate are concreted, the height of underground is 10 fts. below the road.  14] After   the   receipt   of   the   report   plaintiffs   have   filed .....10..... Judgment in M.   C.A No.65/2018                                                                                                          CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018. application   for   appointment  of   Court  Receiver   under  Order  40 Rule   1   r/w.   section   151   of   the   Code   of   Civil   Procedure.   It   is contended by the plaintiffs that even after having knowledge of the order of the Hon'ble Court the defendants are not obeying the order and continued the construction work.   In order to preserve the property,   its  nature  and status,   this  application.  Defendants have filed their Say and objected the application on the count that grave loss will be caused to the defendants as no any documentary proof   is   filed.     plaintiffs   were   never   in   possession   of   the   suit property.   15] It   is   seen   from  the  entire   facts  of   the  case   that   the defendants have filed undertaking that they will not carry out the construction even then as reflected from the report of the Court Commissioner that the entire construction of the ground floor was completed.   Some time will  be required to decide the suit.    On perusing the provisions of Order 40(1) of Code of Civil Procedure it categorically states that where it appears to the Court to be just and convenient the Court may by order (a) appoint a receiver of any   property   whether   before   or   after   decree;   (b)   remove   any person from the possession or custody of the property; (c) commit the   same   to   the   possession,   custody   or   management   of   the receiver.   16] In view of the above provisions it is very clear that if it    .....11.....           Judgment in M.   C.A No.65/2018                                                                                                           CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018. is just and convenient the Court can pass the order of appointment of receiver.  The record reflects that on the basis of undertaking of the Advocate of the defendants the application under section 9­ A(2) of Code of Civil Procedure was disposed off. The nature of the   suit   property   is   likely   to   be   changed.     Hence,   the   said application was allowed. Prior to considering the application of the receiver   there   was   report   of   the   Court   Commissioner   that   the nature of the suit property has been changed. It is a part of the trial to consider whether the plaintiffs had right, title and interest in the suit property.  Defendants have moved an application under section 9­A of Code of Civil Procedure which is separately dealt with. Hence, the contention of the defendants that Civil Judge, JD, Ulhasnagar does not have jurisdiction as the value of the property is   Rs.85,00,000/­   cannot   be   a   ground   to   reject   the   present application.   In   fact   Order   40   (1)   of   Code   of   Civil   Procedure categorically states that when it appears to the Court it is just and convenient the Court Receiver can be appointed.   Plaintiffs have made out a ground for appointment of Court Receiver.   In such circumstances I answer point no.1 in the affirmative.   As to point no.2 & 3 : 17] In view of foregoing discussion, I hold that the order of Court Receiver passed by Ld. Civil Judge, J.D. Ulhasnagar is proper and correct and there is no error in passing the said order.  Hence, I   answer   point   no.2   in   the   negative   and   proceed   to   pass   the .....12..... Judgment in M.   C.A No.65/2018                                                                                                          CNR NO.MHTH06­002684­2018. following order : Order 1] The Misc. Civil Appeal is hereby dismissed. 2] No order as to costs. 3] Inform Ld. Trial Court accordingly. (Pronounced in open court)  2020-02-13T17:53:28+0530 Vaishali Sriniwas Malkalpatte Reddy

Similar Cases

Frequently Asked Questions

The Petitioner in case Ms Kestrel Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Thro Rajesh Jawaharlal Gemnani vs Manoharlal Lachmandas Gaja is Ms Kestrel Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Thro Rajesh Jawaharlal Gemnani and 5 more.

The Respondent in case Ms Kestrel Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Thro Rajesh Jawaharlal Gemnani vs Manoharlal Lachmandas Gaja is Manoharlal Lachmandas Gaja and 7 more.

The case against Manoharlal Lachmandas Gajawas filed on 27-07-2018 by Ms Kestrel Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Thro Rajesh Jawaharlal Gemnani.

The status of case Ms Kestrel Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Thro Rajesh Jawaharlal Gemnani against Manoharlal Lachmandas Gaja is Case Disposed.