VAMANASHRAM CO-OPERATIVE HSG. SOCIETY LTD.versusLIC EMPLOYEES SHRAMSAPHALYA CHSL

                                                                                                      24- IA-7208-26 IN AOST SPK.DOC


JYOTI
RAJESH                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANE                                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed
by JYOTI
RAJESH MANE
Date: 2026.09.24
19:42:04 +0530                            INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7208 OF 2026
                                                               IN
                                           Appeal from Order (ST) NO. 22246 OF 2026


                   Vamanashram Co-operative
                   Hsg. Society Ltd.                                                              ...Applicant
                         Versus
                   Lic Employees Shramsaphalya Chsl                                               ...Respondent(s)

                                                   _______
                   Mr. Rohan Savant a/w. Aagam Mehta a/w. Mr. Atul Singh, a/w. Mr. Hemant Joshi,
                   a/w. Ms. Ritrika Dave, i/b. Samarth Associates, for Appellant.
                   None for the Respondents.
                                                                          _______

                                                           CORAM:                AARTI SATHE, J.

                                                              DATE:              21 SEPTEMBER 2026

                   P.C.

                   1.            The present Appeal from Order is filed challenging the order dated 3rd

                   July 2026 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Dindoshi (“the learned Trial

                   Court”), whereby the learned Trial Court declined to grant ad-interim reliefs

                   sought by the Appellant in Notice of Motion No. 1984 of 2026 in Civil Suit No.

                   1222 of 2026. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has refused to grant

                   the ad-interim reliefs as prayed for by the Appellant.

                   2.         Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that the

                   original building of the Respondent-Society was constructed sometime in the year

                   1977. At the relevant time, the Respondent-Society had constructed a compound

                   wall demarcating and separating its plot from the adjoining plot of land, upon


                                                                      Page 1 of 4
                   Mane   This order is corrected/modified vide speaking order dtd. 24/09/2026.
                                                                               24- IA-7208-26 IN AOST SPK.DOC



which the old building of the Appellant came to be constructed in the year 1985.

The said compound wall is the subject matter of the dispute in the present

proceedings and has remained in existence, continuously and without interruption,

for almost 50 years.

3.              During the course of the redevelopment work undertaken by the

Appellant-Society, the compound wall was partly demolished on account of falling

debris. The redevelopment of the building of the Appellant was completed in the

year 2024. In order to comply with the conditions stipulated in the IOD, the

Appellant is required to reconstruct the compound wall, and unless the said

conditions are duly complied with, the Occupation Certificate (“OC”) cannot be

granted by the BMC.

4.         In March 2024, the Appellant addressed a notice to the Respondent-

Society informing the Respondent - Society of its intention to reconstruct the

compound wall at the same location and in the same manner in which it existed

prior to its partial demolition in the year 2022. However, despite repeated requests

and reminders, the Respondent - Society has continued to obstruct and/or oppose

the reconstruction of the compound wall by the Appellant.

5.         On account of the aforesaid conduct and refusal on the part of the

Respondent – Society, the Appellant was constrained to institute Suit No. 1222 of

2026, inter alia, seeking injunctive reliefs restraining the Respondent - Society

from causing any obstruction to the reconstruction of the compound wall. The

Appellant has also taken out Notice of Motion No. 1984 of 2026 seeking interim




                                                   Page 2 of 4
Mane   This order is corrected/modified vide speaking order dtd. 24/09/2026.
                                                                               24- IA-7208-26 IN AOST SPK.DOC



reliefs in the said Suit. The said Notice of Motion is presently pending

adjudication.

6.            This Court is of the view that, since the present Appeal from Order has

been preferred against the ad-interim order dated 3rd July 2026, and since the

learned Trial Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits or formed any prima

facie view in respect thereof, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice

that Notice of Motion No. 1984 of 2026 be heard and decided expeditiously by

the learned Trial Court.

7.           Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has placed on

record the Roznamas to demonstrate that the Notice of Motion has remained

pending for hearing and has, on several occasions, not been taken up, thereby

causing prejudice to the Appellant. None appears on behalf of the Respondent-

Society, despite service of notice by private service. However, having regard to the

nature of the orders that this Court proposes to pass in the present Appeal from

Order, this Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the

Respondent.

8.            In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that Notice of Motion

No. 1984 of 2026 ought to be heard and decided by the learned Trial Court

expeditiously. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is requested to hear and decide

the aforesaid Notice of Motion on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible and,

preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. The parties will

not seek adjournment before the trial Court at the hearing of the Notice of Motion.

All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.



                                                   Page 3 of 4
Mane   This order is corrected/modified vide speaking order dtd. 24/09/2026.
                                                                                 24- IA-7208-26 IN AOST SPK.DOC



9.            It is clarified that this Court has not delved into the merits of the matter

and has not expressed any prima facie view thereon. The learned Trial Court shall

decide the Notice of Motion uninfluenced by any observations made in the present

order.

10.      The Appeal from Order stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

11.      Pending Interim Application, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.




                                                                (AARTI SATHE, J.)




                                                     Page 4 of 4
Mane     This order is corrected/modified vide speaking order dtd. 24/09/2026.