IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2022

(@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 8504 of 2022)

BHANUMATI KESHRICHAND JHAVERI (SINCE DECEASED)

THROUGH LRS

...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

GOODWILL REALTORS AND PROPERTIES PVT.

LTD.& ORS.

….RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

We have heard Shri Amit Sibal, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellant/one of the original plaintiffs

and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior Advocate appearing on

behalf of respondent No. 1 herein/original defendant no. 14 in the

suit. Ms. Anjana Prakash, learned Senior Advocate appearing for

respondent no. 3 herein/original defendant no. 1 and Sh. Gaurav

Agarwal, appearing for respondent no. 6 herein/defendant no. 4 are

present in the Court.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated

13.04.2022 in Civil Writ Petition No.6356 of 2021 by which the High

Court has allowed the said Writ Petition Under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India filed by respondent No. 1 herein (original

defendant no.14) and has quashed and set aside the order passed by

the learned Trial Court refusing to frame the additional issues

suggested by respondent no. 1 herein (original defendant no. 14)

contd..

Digitally signed by

SWETA BALODI

Date: 2022.07.21

16:06:04 IST

Reason:

Signature Not Verified

- 2 -

and consequently has directed to frame the additional issues, which

read as under :

“A

Whether the Original Lessors, who created

the tenancy under he Consent Terms filed in Suit No.

236 of 1968 before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

in R.A.D. Suit no. 4081 of 1977 before the small

Causes Court, Bombay, were joint Tenants?

B)

Whether the Plaintiffs have correctly described

the suit property?”

the original plaintiff has preferred the present Appeal.

We have heard Shri Amit Sibal, learned Senior Advocate

appearing for the appellant and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned

Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 at length

and approximately for more than 3 hours. After elaborate

submissions were made, Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned Senior

Advocate, under the instructions of her client, has stated at the

Bar that respondent No. 1 herein (original defendant no.14) had no

objection if the impugned judgment and order passed by the High

Court is set aside and the order passed by the learned Trial Court

refusing to frame the additional issues is restored. She does not

invite any further reasoned order while quashing and setting aside

the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of

framing the additional issues, as above.

Under the circumstances, we do not pass any further reasoned

order while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment

and order passed by the High Court framing the additional issues.

Contd...

- 3 -

In view of the above and the statement made by Ms. Meenakashi

Arora, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent

No. 1 herein (original defendant no.14), present appeal is

allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court

in Civil Writ Petition No. 6356 of 2021 dated 13.04.2022 is

hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by learned

Trial Court dated 02.08.2021 passed below under Exh. 601 which

was confirmed by the learned Revisional Court vide order dated

01.09.2021 in Revision Application No.95 of 2021 is hereby

ordered to be restored.

On quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment and order

passed by the High Court framing the additional issues and

restoring the order passed by learned Trial Court, passed below

Exh. 601, now the trial has to proceed further with the suit on

the basis of the issues which were already framed earlier.

The present appeal is accordingly allo