MR.SHAMIM AKHATAR SIRAJUDDIN AND ORS. v. MR.HAFIZUR REHMAN K SHIAKH AND ORS.
CAF/1731/2018 · 2026-02-12
Shri Jitendra Shantilal Jain
body2018
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2018 DAILYLAW 3391 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2018 DAILYLAW 3391 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HMK 1 19. CA-1731-2018.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1731 OF 2018 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 578 OF 2018 Shamim Akhatar Sirajuddin & Ors. ….Applicants/Appellants Versus Hafizur Rehman K. Shaikh & Ors. .…Respondents __________________________________________________________________ Mr. S. P. Shrivastava for the Appellants. Mrs. Shakuntala Mudbidri for the Respondents. __________________________________________________________________
CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J.
DATED : 12th FEBRUARY 2026 P. C. :
1. The ad-interim relief was continued by order dated 04.05.2018 till the next date of hearing. Thereafter, the ad-interim was continued by order dated 10.12.2018 and the said order was upto 18.01.2019. After January 2019, there is no order extending the stay.
2. It is also important to note that, none of the above orders are speaking orders, but it was only an ad-interim arrangement. The present application seeks stay of the operation of judgment and decree dated 02.02.2018, by which, the suit filed for possession by the plaintiff was
decreed. However, since the possession was with the defendants, the ad- interim was granted and is continued upto January 2019. Instead of there being no order after January 2019, the defendants have continued to occupy. SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI Digitally signed by SAYYED SAEED ALI AHMED ALI Date: 2026.02.13 11:04:32 +0530
HMK 2 19. CA-1731-2018.doc
3. In the interrengum, the suit property went for redevelopment. The defendants have been given transit/permanent accommodation by the Corporation. The defendants are now occupying the said transit accommodation, which is around 180 sq. ft. as per information given by the
learned counsel for the defendants.
4. There is some confusion regarding the alternate premises allotted to the defendants is a transit accommodation or permanent accommodation.
5. As of today, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. However, same is subject matter of the present appeal. The impugned order is stayed subject to following conditions :- (a) Defendants will deposit Rs.5,000/- per month from August 2003 till 31st March, 2026. The said deposit should be made within eight weeks from today in this Court. (b) From 01st April, 2026 defendants to deposit Rs.5,000/- per month in this Court till the final disposal of the appeal. (c) Both the above amounts should be invested in fixed deposit and fixed deposit should be kept alive till the disposal of the appeal. (d) If there is default of any deposit, which is directed to be made under this order, then the stay will be automatically vacated and the plaintiff will be entitled to take appropriate measures in accordance with law. (e) Plaintiff is at liberty to make appropriate application for withdrawal of the above amount and the Court will consider the same at the appropriate time.
6. Time for depositing the amount will not be extended at any cost. The amount deposited will be subject to the outcome of this appeal.
HMK 3 19. CA-1731-2018.doc
7. Civil Application No. 1731 of 2018 is disposed of.
[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ]