Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + HC Indian Laws - 2019 (1) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 2009 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking decree of possession of flat - seeking temporary order and injunction against the defendant no.1, their servants and agent from creating any third party rights for redevelopment or otherwise in respect of the suit flat - section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - HELD THAT:- A perusal of the record ex-facie indicates that a plea of jurisdiction raised by the defendant in the written statement and in the affidavit in reply on the premise that the defendant claims to be a tenant / gratuitous licensee and thus the said issue cannot be decided by this Court is not a bonafide plea but is a dishonest plea. No such plea was ever raised by the defendant even in the earlier round of litigation. The Cooperative Court has passed an order directing the society to hand over possession of the flat to the plaintiff if the plaintiff would have given an indemnity to occupy the suit flat himself. That part of the order passed by the Co-operative Court was admittedly not set aside by the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of RAVEESH CHAND JAIN VERSUS RAJ RANI JAIN [2015 (2) TMI 1386 - SUPREME COURT] has after construing Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has held that a bare perusal of the said provision makes it clear that it confers wide discretion on the Court to pass a judgment at any stage of the suit on the basis of admission of facts made in the pleading or otherwise without waiting for the determination of any other question which arose between the parties - It is held that since the said provision permits the passing of judgment at any stage without waiting for determination of other questions, it follows that there can be more than one decree that may be passed at different stages of the same suit. The principle behind Order XII Rule 6 is to give the plaintiff a right to speedy judgment so that either party may get rid of the rival claims which are not in controversy. The Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court held that the appeal thus filed by the society was not tenable. The Cooperative Appellate Court accordingly directed the society to consider the claim of the plaintiff herein on merits. In the operative part of the said order, the Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal No.41 of 1983 filed by Mr.A.Rajam and also the Appeal No.208 of 1983 filed by the society - The rights in the flat and the share certificate in the suit flat vests in the plaintiff and thus the defendant society cannot claim any right, title contrary to the order passed by the Co-operative Court, Maharashtra State Co-operative Appellate Court and this court in respect of the suit flat. The plaintiff has thus made out a case for grant of relief insofar as possession of the suit flat is concerned in this notice of motion under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of various admissions in the pleadings and various orders binding on parties insofar as judgment for recovery of possession. The defendant society is directed to handover the vacant and peaceful possession of the flat to the plaintiff within four weeks from today and shall comply with this order within the same period - Application disposed off.
|