Satish Vadilal Sheth & Anr. v. Shyam T. Sachanandani & Ors.
Judgment
.. Plaintiffs versus Shyam T. Sachanandani & Ors .. Defendants Mr.Nikhil Salian i/by Pravin Mehta & Mithi & Co for plaintiff No.1. Ms.Deepti B. Mistry i/by Vaibhav Mehta & Associates for defendant Nos.3 to 5. CORAM : R.S.MOHITE, J. DATE : 10th August 2010. P.C.: . Heard both the sides. I find that this is a notice of motion taken out by the owners of the property who are defendant Nos.3,4 and 5. No reliefs are sought against the plaintiff and reliefs are only sought against defendant Nos.1 and 2. The reliefs sought against defendant Nos.1 and 2 includes mandatory injunction to remove them from the occupation of the certain parking spaces. In my view, such prayers sought in the notice of motion filed by one defendant against co-defendants without seeking any reliefs against the plaintiff cannot be filed in the plaintiff’s suit. If at all the defendant Nos.3, NMS.1543/10 IN S.2886/07 2 4 and 5 want to obtain any relief against defendant Nos.1 and 2 then they have to file independent proceedings and cannot seek any reliefs in a suit filed by the plaintiffs for entirely different reliefs. In the circumstances, notice of motion is dismissed with liberty to the defendant Nos.3, 4 and 5 to take out separate proceedings for the same reliefs before an appropriate Court. (R.S.MOHITE, 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.