Writ Petition No. 9577 of 2013. Case: Mumbai International Airport Pvt. Ltd. Vs Edward alias Adward Paul Machado and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberWrit Petition No. 9577 of 2013
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. Vineet Naik, Senior Advocate, Ms. Shoma Maitra and Mr. Prabhav Shroff i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. and For Respondents: Mr. S.U. Kamdar, Senior Advocate, Mr. Vishal Kanade i/b Negandhi Shah, Himayatullah, Mr. Rakesh Singh i/b M.V. Kini & Co. and Mr. D.P. Singh, Adv.
JudgesR. M. Savant, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order VII Rules 10, 10A; Order XIV Rule 2; Constitution of India - Article 227
Judgement DateDecember 04, 2013
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)

Judgment:

R. M. Savant, J.

1. Rule, with the consent of the Learned Counsel for the parties made returnable forthwith and heard. The Writ Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is invoked against the order dated 1-3-2013, passed by the Learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai to the extent it decides the application raising the issue of limitation and questioning the inherent jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bombay to entertain the Suit, is concerned. By the said order, three issues were decided namely the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bombay to entertain the Suit, the issue of bar of limitation and the inherent jurisdiction of the City Civil Court Bombay. As indicated above the challenge is restricted to the decision rendered on the two other issues other than the issue of pecuniary jurisdiction.

2. The Respondent No. 1 herein is the original Plaintiff who has filed the Suit in question for an injunction apprehending that the Petitioner/Defendant, as also the other Defendants to the Suit would dispossess him from the suit property. The Plaintiff by way of an amendment vide Chamber Summons No. 513 of 2011 which was allowed on 5-11-2011 included a prayer seeking declaration of perfection of title by adverse possession. Against the order allowing the amendment application, the matter had reached this Court by way of a Writ Petition No. 10404 of 2011 filed by the Petitioner by order dated 12-12-2011 this court had dismissed the said Petition. Against the said dismissal the Petitioner herein had carried the matter to the Apex court by way of Special Leave Petition No. 1038 of 2012, the Apex Court by order dated 12-1-2012, confirmed the order passed by this Court and thereby upheld the amendments which were allowed. However, the Apex Court granted liberty to the parties to take up all points in issue including the question of jurisdiction and limitation. By the said order, the Apex Court also expedited the hearing of the Suit and directed that the same to be disposed of within 6 months. It appears that issues in the Suit came to be framed on 14-2-2012 and thereafter the Petitioner herein filed an application that the issues relating to the inherent jurisdiction, limitation and the pecuniary jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Bombay be tried as preliminary issues under Order 14 Rule 2 of the CPC. It appears that the said application filed by the Petitioner was...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT