Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
has no objection to the impugned order, by which the preliminary
issue has been framed. However, the petitioner is aggrieved by
denial of interim relief, which, the petitioner is entitled to press in
terms of Section 9A(2) of the CPC.
3] In this case, the impugned order does not reject any interim
relief. All that, learned Trial Judge has observed that there was no
application for interim relief and in the absence of any such
application, there is no question of consideration of any prayer for
interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in
the reply filed to the motion for framing of preliminary issue, the
petitioner had applied for interim relief.
4] From the perusal of the reply, there does not appear to be any
such prayer. In any case, it is only appropriate that the petitioner, if,
is seriously interested in any interim relief should take out an
appropriate application, which can always be considered in
accordance with law by learned Trial Court. Accordingly, there is
absolutely no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8396 OF 2017
Shadaab S. Patel vs. Oscar Builders Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 18 SEPTEMBER 2017.
1] Not on board. In view of urgency, taken on production board.
2] Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
has no objection to the impugned order, by which the preliminary
issue has been framed. However, the petitioner is aggrieved by
denial of interim relief, which, the petitioner is entitled to press in
terms of Section 9A(2) of the CPC.
3] In this case, the impugned order does not reject any interim
relief. All that, learned Trial Judge has observed that there was no
application for interim relief and in the absence of any such
application, there is no question of consideration of any prayer for
interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in
the reply filed to the motion for framing of preliminary issue, the
petitioner had applied for interim relief.
4] From the perusal of the reply, there does not appear to be any
such prayer. In any case, it is only appropriate that the petitioner, if,
is seriously interested in any interim relief should take out an
appropriate application, which can always be considered in
accordance with law by learned Trial Court. Accordingly, there is
absolutely no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order.
In any case, the petitioner is granted liberty to take out a proper
application supported by the affidavit seeking interim reliefs. If such
application is taken out, the Trial Court to consider the same in
accordance with law and on its own merits by affording an
opportunity of hearing to the opposite party.
5] With aforesaid observations and liberty, the petition is
disposed of.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
has no objection to the impugned order, by which the preliminary
issue has been framed. However, the petitioner is aggrieved by
denial of interim relief, which, the petitioner is entitled to press in
terms of Section 9A(2) of the CPC.
3] In this case, the impugned order does not reject any interim
relief. All that, learned Trial Judge has observed that there was no
application for interim relief and in the absence of any such
application, there is no question of consideration of any prayer for
interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in
the reply filed to the motion for framing of preliminary issue, the
petitioner had applied for interim relief.
4] From the perusal of the reply, there does not appear to be any
such prayer. In any case, it is only appropriate that the petitioner, if,
is seriously interested in any interim relief should take out an
appropriate application, which can always be considered in
accordance with law by learned Trial Court. Accordingly, there is
absolutely no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8396 OF 2017
Shadaab S. Patel vs. Oscar Builders Pvt. Ltd. and anr.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 18 SEPTEMBER 2017.
1] Not on board. In view of urgency, taken on production board.
2] Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner
has no objection to the impugned order, by which the preliminary
issue has been framed. However, the petitioner is aggrieved by
denial of interim relief, which, the petitioner is entitled to press in
terms of Section 9A(2) of the CPC.
3] In this case, the impugned order does not reject any interim
relief. All that, learned Trial Judge has observed that there was no
application for interim relief and in the absence of any such
application, there is no question of consideration of any prayer for
interim relief. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that in
the reply filed to the motion for framing of preliminary issue, the
petitioner had applied for interim relief.
4] From the perusal of the reply, there does not appear to be any
such prayer. In any case, it is only appropriate that the petitioner, if,
is seriously interested in any interim relief should take out an
appropriate application, which can always be considered in
accordance with law by learned Trial Court. Accordingly, there is
absolutely no case is made out to interfere with the impugned order.
In any case, the petitioner is granted liberty to take out a proper
application supported by the affidavit seeking interim reliefs. If such
application is taken out, the Trial Court to consider the same in
accordance with law and on its own merits by affording an
opportunity of hearing to the opposite party.
5] With aforesaid observations and liberty, the petition is
disposed of.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment