In a partition suit, my brothers moved notice of motion for ad-interim injunction to stop me from entering my office,where I have been since 1966. He suceeded in ad-interim stage claiming I was not in possession.
During the hearing of the Notice of motion, I submitted proof having received registered letters (notices) from the Himalaya House Company Ltd, (for payment of dues,) where the office premises is located at room no. 8, Himalaya house. I also paid dues after receiving the notices.
Other proofs submitted were various licences like Shop & establishment licence (from 1979, renewed up to 2006 (. It was not renewed thereafter because of ad-interim injunction.)
Is this shops lcence valid proof that I have been in possession and doing business since 1979. The judge does not think so because the address marked on the licence is shown as " c/o: 8, Himalaya House, 79, Palton Road, Mumbai 2". I have never noticed why it was metioned as c/o: address whereas the truth is that it is the true address where I have been for so many years. I do not think Shops Licence can be issued at c/o: address for business.
Other proof submitted was letters from MTNL, showing that my brothers are not allowing repairs of my telephone, wires of which they have deliberately kept cutting.
Is there any ways I can ask the Judge to review the order?
I am suffering a lot because of this unfair order. Brothers are useing physical means of harrassment at home also.
Pls treat this as very urgent
Thank you
Ramesh BAjaj
