Mehul Mahendra Thakkar @ Karia vs Meena Mehul Thakkar @ Karia
- SCC(2009) 14 SCC 48
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An interim order passed during the pendency of an appeal ought not to grant the final relief sought in the main petition; such an order is unsustainable as a matter of settled legal principle, and the High Court erred in directing the Court Receiver to take possession of the disputed property and induct the respondent during the appeal rather than preserving the status quo pending the decision on the merits.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Mehul Mahendra Thakkar @ Karia ..........Appellant
Versus
Meena Mehul Thakkar @ Karia ........Respondent
ORDER
Leave granted.
2) The order passed by the High Court of Bombay in Civil
Application No. 238 of 2007 filed in Family Court Appeal No.
128 of 2007 dated 5.10.2007 is the subject matter of this appeal.
3) By the impugned order, the court has directed the Court Receiver
to take possession of the flat from the appellant and induct
respondent-wife in the flat during the pendency of the appeal.
4) In the appeal filed, the appellant has called in question the
correctness or otherwise of the findings and the conclusion
reached by the Family Court in Petition No. A-1072/2000 dated
1 6.2.2007, wherein the Family Court has reached the conclusion
that both the husband and wife are joint owners of flat bearing No.
303, Rajesh Nagar Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Borivali
(West), Mumbai.
5) Even before giving a verdict on the findings and the conclusions
reached by the Family Court, by way of interim relief, the court
has granted the main relief itself. This, in our opinion is
unsustainable. It is settled legal position, that by way of interim
relief, final relief should not be granted till the matter is decided
one way or the other.
6) In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the order
by the High Court in Family Court Appeal No. 128 of 2007 dated
5th day of October, 2007. In view of the peculiar facts and
circumstances of this case, we request the court to dispose of the
appeal as early as possible and at any rate within an outer limit of
six months from the date of receipt of copy of this court's order.
.......................................J. [ TARUN CHATTERJEE ]
.......................................J. [ H.L. DATTU ]
2 New Delhi, March 23, 2009.
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free