NO. 536 OF 2012 IN AO 398/2012 Smt. Pistabai Khemchand Sakhla & Ors. v. Smt. Ghindodibai Manilal Sakhla & Ors.
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 398 of 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 536 OF 2012 IN AO 398/2012 Smt. Pistabai Khemchand Sakhla & & ors. ...Appellants v/s. Smt. Ghindodibai Manilal Sakhla & ors. ...Respondents Mr. Kunal Bhanage for the appellant. Mr. S.K. Sonawane Patil for respondent no.6. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. 8th October, 2012. PC: Heard Advocate Bhanage for appellant-plaintiff, learned standing Counsel for respondent no.6. Perused prayer clauses in Notice of Motion, particularly prayer clause (b).
#2. Learned Counsel attempts to urge that effort was to raise additional construction in the guise of repairs. The prayer clause does not reveal any such effort made before trial Court.
#3. The grant of permission to repairs by respondent no.6 may not be always construed as prayer to raise additional construction. The trial Court has still not rejected the Notice of Motion. 2 ao398.12.sxw
#4. In this case I am not inclined to interfere at this stage. AO rejected.
#5. Consequently, Civil Application No.536/2012 is also rejected. L.S.Panjwani, P.A. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.