Supreme Court - Daily OrdersNew Purshottam Nagar Co-Op. Hsg. ... vs Bhagwanji Kanji Mistry & Ors. Etc. on 29 June, 2016Bench:Shiva Kirti Singh,R. Banumathi1


                      ITEM NO.22+63              COURT NO.14                     SECTION IX

                                 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F         I N D I A
                                         RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                      Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)......CC          No(s).
                      9255-9256/2016

                      (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated
                      11/04/2016 in AN No. 497/2014 02/05/2016 in NOM No.
                      31/2013 02/05/2016 in SN No. 2894/2011 05/04/2016 in AN
                      No. 472/2014 11/04/2016 in SN No. 2894/2011 11/04/2016 in
                      CS No. 778/2013 05/04/2016 in NOM No. 31/2013 02/05/2016
                      in AN No. 472/2014 05/04/2016 in SN No. 2894/2011 passed
                      by the High Court Of Bombay)

                      NEW PURSHOTTAM NAGAR CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD. Petitioner(s)

                                                    VERSUS

                      BHAGWANJI KANJI MISTRY & ORS. ETC.                  Respondent(s)

                      (with appln. (s) for exemption from filing c/copy as well
                      as plain copy of the impugned order and permission to file
                      SLP without c/copy as well as plain copy of impugned order
                      and interim relief and office report)
                       with

                      SLP(C)No. 15963/2016
                      (With appln.for exemption from filing C/C of the impugned
                      judgment and permission to place Addl. Documents on record
                      and Interim relief and office report)

                      Date : 29/06/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing
                      today.

                      CORAM :
                           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
                           HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI

                      For the petitioner
                       in CC.9255-56/16Mr.   A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
                                       Mr.   Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
                                       Mr.   Niranjhan M. Vaghela, Adv.
                                       Ms.   Parul Shukla, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
                                       Mr.   Satyendra Kumar, Adv.
Digitally signed by
NEELAM GULATI
Date: 2016.07.04
                                       Mr.   E. C. Agrawala,Adv.
17:06:22 IST
Reason:                In SLP(C)15963/16
                                       Mr.   Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
                                       Ms.   Aruna Gupta, Adv.
                                        2

For the Respondent
Nos. 1&2 in     Mr. Kapil Sibal, Sr. Adv.
CC9255-56/16    Ms. Aruna Gupta, Adv.



For RR. No. 3        Mr.   Kavin Gulati, Sr. Adv.
 CC9255-56/16        Mr.   Yogesh Aditya, Adv.
                     Mr.   Rohit S. Thakkar, Adv.
                     Ms.   Rashmi Singh, Adv.


For RR.No. 5         Mr. Shyam Diwan, Sr. Adv.
 CC9255-56/16        Mr. T. Mahipal, Adv.

For RR. No.1         Mr.   Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
In SLP15963/16       Mr.   Niranjhan M. Vaghela, Adv.
                     Ms.   Parul Shukla, Adv.
                     Mr.   Satyendra Kumar, Adv.
                     Mr.   E. C. Agrawala,Adv.



       UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
                              O R D E RCIVIL APPEAL NO(S).5411-5412 OF 2016
        (Arising out of SLP(C)No.16101-16102 of 2016)
        (Arising out of CC No. 9255-9256 OF 2016)

             Permission to file SLP is allowed.
             Leave granted.Appeal is       allowed to the          extend indicated in
  the signed order.IN SLP(C) No.15963 OF 2016
             On     behalf       of    the   Appellant,         it    has     been
  submitted       that     the    maintainability         of    the    suit     is
  seriously       doubtful       and    in   any     case      the    issue    of
  recreational ground, which is the main grievance of the
  respondent-society does not have any merit because even
  as   per   the     revised      sanctioned       plan   the       recreational
  ground is available but in two separate parts.                              The
  second submission is on equities and not on merits of
  the issue raised herein.Issue notice.Mr.   E.C.     Agrawala,        waives      notice      on    behalf     of3respondent No. 1.Let   notice   be   issued   on   the   other   respondents
returnable within six weeks.(NEELAM GULATI)                      (MADHU NARULA)
    COURT MASTER                         COURT MASTER(Signed order in C.A.5411-5412/2016 @SLP 16101-16102
 of 2016 @ CC. 9255-56/2016 is placed on the file)1IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


              CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 5411-5412 OF 2016
                (Arising out of SLP(C)No.16101-16102 of 2016)
                (Arising out of CC No. 9255-9256 OF 2016)



NEW PURSHOTTAM NAGAR CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD.                Appellant(s)


                                VERSUS


BHAGWANJI KANJI MISTRY & ORS. ETC.                             Respondent(s)



                              O R D E R

         IN C.A.No. 5411-5412 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP No.
         16101-16102 of 2016 @ CC 9255-9256/2016

              Permission to file SLP is allowed.

              Leave granted.Heard Dr. A.M. Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel

   for the Appellant and Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned Senior

   counsel for the contesting respondents.The simple grievance raised on behalf of the

   appellant-society is that while the High Court has not

   restrained     the   concerned       respondents   from     proceeding

   with construction over the land concerned, it has stayed

   the    proceedings of the suit filed by the appellants and

   as     a   result    the   Appellants      are     unable     to   seek

   appropriate relief from the trial           court.2In reply, the submission is that there has never

   been   any    stay    over   construction      activities    of    the

   concerned respondents but the stay of the proceedings of

   the suit which is to continue till 11th July, 2016 may be

   brought to an end even today.In the facts of the case and considering the

   aforesaid submissions, we modify the impugned order of

   the    High   Court    so    as   to   limit    the   stay   of    the

   proceedings of the suit till this date only.                      As a

   result the appellant, if so advised, may move the trial

   court for any appropriate relief.Appeal is     allowed to the aforesaid extend.…..............J
                                              (SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)



                                                   …..............J
                                                  (R. BANUMATHI)

NEW DELHI
June 29, 2016