Bombay High Court
URSULA THAKKARversusCHARITA HEMMADY AND 6 ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The court held that the existing interim arrangement should continue until the suit is finally disposed, and therefore the notice of motion was disposed of.
Summary
The plaintiff, a Singapore resident, sought relief in a notice of motion concerning possession of a floor, relying on an earlier order dated 10‑04‑2017 that barred interference with his possession. The court had previously recorded an undertaking from the defendants’ counsel to respect that order. After a delay of more than nine years, the plaintiff was granted four weeks to bring subsequent events on record and was directed to file replies. The court ordered that the existing arrangement regarding possession be continued until the final disposal of the suit. The notice of motion was consequently disposed of, with the plaintiff left free to file any further applications for additional relief. The matter was adjourned to 13‑October‑2026 for further compliance.
Issues considered
- Whether the interim arrangement respecting the plaintiff’s possession should continue pending final disposal of the suit
- Whether the notice of motion should be dismissed after a prolonged delay
Subjects
- civil procedure
- interim order
- possession
- delay
- notice of motion
- adjournment
Judgment
48 Nms-961-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 961 OF 2017
WITH
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 276 OF 2019
IN
SUIT NO. 301 OF 2017
WITH
SUIT NO. 301 OF 2017
Ursula Thakkar ...Plaintiff
Vs.
Charita Hemmady And 6 Ors. ...Defendants
*****
Adv. Tanvi Darji i/by Induslaw Advocate for the Defendant Nos.
1 and 2
*****
CORAM : S. M. MODAK, J.
DATE : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2026
P. C. :-
1. Plaintiff is granted four weeks time to bring the subsequent
events on record. It is true this Court on 10.04.2017 passed an order in
Notice of Motion No. 621 of 2017 and recorded an undertaking of the
learned advocate for the defendants that nobody will interfere with the
possession of the plaintiff. It is further recorded in para no. 2 that “ Mr.
Digitally
signed by
Narichania states that plaintiff should be entitled to access the third
SEEMA
SEEMA KSHITIJ
KSHITIJ YELKAR
YELKAR Date:
2026.09.24
14:22:53
+0530
Seema 1/2
48 Nms-961-2017.doc
floor also. At the same time, it should be noted that plaintiff resides in
Singapore and visits Mumbai regularly”.
2. With this undertaking, the matter was adjourned for filing
replies. Replies are ready. This motion is pending for more than nine
years.
3. So let that arrangement be continued till disposal of the suit.
With this arrangement, Notice of Motion is disposed of.
4. If Plaintiff wants to press for other reliefs in Notice of Motion, he
is at liberty to file necessary application.
5. Stand over to 13th October 2026.
[S. M. MODAK, J.]
Seema 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.