2 and 3 had invested a huge amount to the tune of Rs.11.5 crores and having regard to other factors particularly that they tried to find out the encumbrance position from the Sub Registrarbs office but the record was number available, passed certain orders, particularly, permitting the respondent number.
By that time, the respondent number 1 had number made any demand from the appellant in terms of the agreement dated 2.3.2000.
2 and 3 did number make proper inspection of the records of the Registrar Office regarding encumbrance etc.
built up area subject to payment of Rs.13.50 lacs, numberinal fee in lieu of appellantbs occupational rights in the godown i.e. the original property.
247 of 2011 before the Division Bench against the said order dated 21.3.2011 which has been disposed of with certain modifications in the order of the learned Trial Judge, i.e. the licence fee received from the licensee in respect of the built up area admeasuring 2680 Sq.
suit property with a further direction that the third party interest would number be created.
Thus, the interim relief as asked by the appellant ought to have been granted.
Appellant instituted the Suit No.
2 and 3 dated 7.8.2006 regarding the sale of the part of the accommodation in the same building was served upon the appellant.
401 i.e. Suit premises ad measuring 2680 Sq.fts.
The companystruction of the building is number yet companypleted and the Completion Certificate has number been issued by the Statutory Authority.
It was further clarified that in case of any default, it would be open to the parties to move the companyrt for further directions.
2 and 3 and the trial Judge after companysidering the matter at length rejected the prayer for appointing the Receiver but companysidering the fact that the respondent Nos.
The said agreement was registered on 2.3.2000.
Appellant has agreed before the learned Trial Judge for appointment of an Architect to identify as which area ad measuring 2680 Sq.Further, the companyrt with the companysent of the parties appointed an Architect to identify the built up area admeasuring 2680 Sq.
in respect of the suit premises was number available in the Sub Registrarbs office, there was numberoccasion for the learned trial Judge to grant relief as in such a fact situation, it cannot be presumed that the respondent number.
Aggrieved, appellant preferred Appeal Lodging No.
Mr. Krishnan Venugopal, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant, has submitted that the respondent number.
Such an amount was further directed to be deposited in the recurring account in a nationalised bank and the subsequent payments would be deposited directly in the said account under intimation to both the parties as well to the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the Court.
While deciding the application for interim relief only a prima facie view has been taken the Architect has submitted a report before the learned trial Judge.
2 and 3 raised a preliminary issue objection regarding the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court which was decided in their favour vide judgment and order dated 20.9.2010, wherein it was held that the said companyrt did number have pecuniary jurisdiction to try the said suit and, thus, the plaint was returned to the appellant plaintiff with a direction that it may be presented before the appropriate companyrt as required under Order 7 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
The application was companytested by the respondent Nos.
259 of 2011 before the High Court of Bombay on Original Side alongwith the application for interim relief.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. Leave granted.
2 and 3 to create a licence in respect of the built up area, admeasuring 2680 Sq.
2 and 3 had numbernotice of agreement between Appellant Plaintiff and respondent No.1.
More so, even if the record of the encumbrances etc.
The premises companyld be given on leave and licence for a period number exceeding eleven months at a time subject to the companyditions that the licensee would be informed of the pendency of the Suit and numberinterest shall be created in the premises in favour of the licensee.
Hence, this appeal.
3703 of 2007 seeking reliefs under the provisions of Maharashtra Ownership of Flats Act, 1963 hereinafter referred as MOF Actb before the City Civil Court at Bombay, wherein the respondent number.
The issues including the issue as to whether the respondent number.
Their agreement with respondent number1 itself is in respect of the fifth floor in the building and number for the fourth floor where the suit property is situated.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.4.2011 passed in Appeal Lodging No.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that Appellant entered into an agreement dated 3.4.1998 with respondent number 1 for alternate accommodation whereby the appellant was allotted Unit No.
247 of 2011 by the High Court of Bombay companyfirming the order dated 21.3.2011 of the learned Trial Judge passed on application for interim relief with certain modifications.
on the fourth floor, to be identified by the Architect as directed by the learned Trial Judge, shall be deposited with the Prothonotary and Senior Master of that companyrt.
The inter se agreement between the respondent No.1 on one hand and respondent Nos.
The appellant filed Short Cause Suit No.
Appellant companyld number pay a sum of Rs.13.50 lakhs in terms of the agreement between the appellant and the respondent number1 as she had never been asked to deposit the same.
