Skip to main content
Court Order

Order 1

CNR MHCC01000327202014 Jan 2020
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Order 1 · 14 Jan 2020 · CNR MHCC010003272020

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 Ad-Int - Un.Reg.NM in Su.No.105-2020
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI.
ORDER ON AD INTERIM RELIEF ON
UN REGISTERED NOTICE OF MOTION
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 105 OF 2020
(CNR No. MHCC010003272020)
KISHOR KESHUBHAI CHUDASAMA (MISTRY) ]
Indian inhabitant, residing at Flat No.1 ]
Ground Floor, Neelkanthdeep CHS Ltd. ]
Hansoti Lane, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai 400 086 ]... Plaintiff
Versus
1. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER ]
MUMBAI, a body Corporate, duly ]
incorporated under the provisions ]
of M.M.C. Act, having its office at ]
Mahanagarpalika Marg, Mumbai400 001 ]
and having its ward office at the office of the ]
Assistant Commissioner, 'N' Ward, Annex Bldg. ]
Jawahar Road, Ghatkopar (E), Mumbai4 077 ]....Defendants
Appearances:
Ld. Advocate Mrs. Shubhangi Subhedar for the Plaintiff.
Ld. APP Mrs. Patil for defendant/MCGM.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI U.J.MORE
(Court Room no. 8)
DATED : 14th January, 2020
O R A L O R D E R O N A D I N T E R I M R E L I E F
1. Perused plaint, Notice of Motion, documents annexed to
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Ad-Int - Un.Reg.NM in Su.No.105-2020
the plaint and heard Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff. The plaintiff has
prayed for restrain the Defendant their servants, agents, officer, person
or any persons acting and/or claiming through or them by an order and
injuction of this Court restraining them from in any manner
implementing and/or enforcing the impugned Notice issued under
section 351 of BMC Act, 1888, under No. NDO3N/124/351MMC
ACT/N43N01/12082016 dated 13/08/2016 and the impugned Order
received on 02.01.2020 issued by the Executive Engineer & Designated
Officer, 'N' ward of the Defendants from removing/demolishing the suit
structure of the plaintiff being Godown described as "unauthorized
enclosure with the help of brick masonry wall & rolling shutter of stilt
car parking area, having access from adjacent ground floor flat No.1 &
construction of loft therein" in the impugned Notice.
2. Heard both the sides at length.
3. Notice under section 351 of MMC Act, dated 12.08.2016
has rejected all the documentary evidence of plaintiff.
1 Order given by Shinde wadi Court dated 22.05.2013
2 RTI application dated 28.11.2008
3 Rent receipt record of dated 30.09.2016
4 Hon'ble High Court order dated 08.02.2010 and 21.06.2010
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Ad-Int - Un.Reg.NM in Su.No.105-2020
5 Property Assessment Receipt dated 19.03.2016
6 Photograph showing ladder to loft
7 Letter from Mumbai District CoOperative housing Federation dated
01.11.1993
8 Agreement between Gauri Shankar N Joshi and purchaser M/s
Mistry Brothers
9 Letter From Advocate Shubhangi Subhedar Dated 26.08.2016
4. All these documentary evidence has been discussed and
rejected in the notice with remarks that documents are not authentic
documents. Towards authorization of notice structure the agreement
regarding purchase of the flat where is notice structure is constructed is
unregistered and written on 05/ rupees stamp only. There is no
questions regarding to car parking. It is also argued by Ld. Advocate by
the MCGM that question is not about the car parking but the question
about the illegal construction made in the car parking with the help of
construction with brick masonry wall and rolling shutter of stilt car
parking by the plaintiff without any sanction plan competent authority.
5. Acquittal by the criminal court cannot prove that notice
premises is authorized unless some document produced on record. At
this stage Ld. Advocate for the MCGM place reliance on the
1] Interim Application No. 1 of 2019 in P.I.L. No. 67 of 2017
dated 04.10.2019.
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Ad-Int - Un.Reg.NM in Su.No.105-2020
2] AOST No.25660 of 2019 dated 18.09.2013
6. The ratio of both judgment of Hon'ble High Court is
clinching applicable to the case. Prima Facie none of documents shows
that the notice premises i.e. godown with the loft is authorized
structure with a proper permission from the competent authority.
Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for interim relief. Hence, following
order is passed:
ORDER
Adinterim relief is rejected.
(U.J.More)
Judge,
Date : 14.01.2020 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 14.01.2020
Transcribed on : 14.01.2020
Signed by HHJ on : 14.01.2020
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Ad-Int - Un.Reg.NM in Su.No.105-2020
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 15.01.2020 at 5.15 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mr.G.R.Suryawanshi
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. U.J.More
C.R. no.08
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
14/01/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
14/01/2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
15/01/2020
-- 5 of 5 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.