Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: 1 Order on C/S.85-19 in Su.No.2151-18
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI.
ORDER ON CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.85 OF 2019
(CNR No. MHCC01-000503-2019)
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 2151 OF 2018
ALOK YASHPAL BHARARA ]...Plaintiff
Versus
THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
OF GREATER MUMBIA & Orf. ]...Defendant
And
MR. MAHESH RAMJI KAKRECHA ]...Applicantf/
Propofed Defendant
No.2
=====================================
Appearances:-
Ld. Advocate Mr.M.L.Verma for the Applicantf,
Ld. Advocate Mr.Sharad Bhofale for Plaintif,
Ld. Adv. Mrf.Khandagale for defendant/MCGM.
=====================================
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI U.J. MORE
(Court Room no. 8)
DATED : 15th February, 2020
ORDER ON CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.85 OF 2019
1. Thif Chamber Summonf fled by applicant. It if
contended that, he made complaint to the corporation againft
occupierf of the illegal unauthorized ftructure conftructed on
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Order on C/S.85-19 in Su.No.2151-18
the private road. Which createf problemf by unauthorized
tranfport ofce, unauthorized parking and unauthorized
garage/workfhop on the road. Hif complaint waf reply by the
corporation on 10.05.2018 and accordingly notice waf iffued
by M/Weft ward under fection 351 of MMC Act and under
fection 55 of MRTP Act.
2. The police complaint if alfo fled by the applicant
againft the plaintif. He got threat from the occupierf.
Therefore, he lodged complaint on 30.06.2018. He if refiding
at road touch fociety adjacent to illegal ftructure and the
commuterf feeling dangerouf on the road duo to jam, wielding
work, fcrap material etc. Therefore, he if neceffary and
proper party and accordingly he implead af a propofed
defendant No.2.
3. The plaintif fled fay reply and ftrongly objected. It
if ftated that, the plaintif if in occupation and poffeffion of
notice ftructure of 5 confifting of ground + 1, fituated on plot
bearing C.T.S. No.12/1 Santofhi Nagar, Near Mahefh
Apartment, Marauli Village, Near Marauli Church, Chembur,
Mumbai 400074. One Mr. Mahefh Kakrecha haf fome perfonal
enmity againft the plaintif. He approached the plaintif and
demand fome gratifcation when plaintif refufed. He ftarted
blackmailing and making complaint to the corporation againft
the plaintif. On hif inftance only, the notice under fection
351 of MMC Act waf iffued to the plaintif. He if no role to
play af the depute between plaintif and corporation only.
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Order on C/S.85-19 in Su.No.2151-18
4. Heard, both the fidef at length.
5. Adv. M.L.Verma for the applicant pithily fubmitted
that, He if the perfon on hif inftance the corporation haf
been initiated action u/fec.351 of MMC Act. Hif name if
referred into plaint. He made complaint in Exhibit-A to the
corporation and police ftation at Exhibit-C. Therefore, he fhall
be implead af a party.
6. Adv.Bhofale pithily fubmitted that, he haf no role
in thif fuit in order, rule 10 of C.P.C. He if R.T.I activift and
blackmailing the people. Admittedly the fuit fled by
challenging notice u/fec. 351 of MMC Act and for alleged
unauthorized conftruction made by the plaintif in fuit
premifef af well af challenging notice under fection 55 of
MRTP Act.
7. It if alfo admitted that the he haf lodged police
complaint againft variouf occupierf af well af plaintif. It if
alfo admitted that hif name refectf in the body of plaint. But
it doef not refectf from the pleadingf of the Chamber
Summonf that, he if a adjacent refident of the notice
premifef. No where it if the cafe of the applicant that hif
public rightf or hif eafement right of air and right haf been
obftructed at the inftance of plaintif, he if not the landlord of
the fuit premifef.
8. Therefore, I am of the opinion that he if not
neceffary and proper party in a cafe of unauthorized
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Order on C/S.85-19 in Su.No.2151-18
conftruction where the corporation haf iffued to the notice to
the plaintif only.
9. The judgmentf 1. Aijaz @ Azaz Mohammed
Shaikh Vs. MCGM, 2012(2) all MR 171 and 2.
Chandrakant Dharma Bhonu Vs. Pandurang Dandekar,
AIR 2004 Bombay 374 fled by the applicant, due refpect
both judgmentf are not benefcial to the applicant.
Accordingly I proceed to paff following order.
O R D E R
1. Chamber fummonf No.85 of 2019 if rejected.
3. Chamber Summonf No.85 of 2019 if difpofed of
accordingly.
(U.J. More)
Judge,
Date : 15.02.2020 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai
Dictated on : 15.02.2020
Tranfcribed on : 15.02.2020
Signed by HHJ on : 15.02.2020
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Order on C/S.85-19 in Su.No.2151-18
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE
ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 17.02.2020 at 1.30 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mr.G.R.Suryawanfhi
Name of the Judge (With
Court Room no.)
HHJ Shri. U.J.More.
C.R. no.08
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
15.02.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER figned by
P.O. on
15.02.2020
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
17.02.2020
-- 5 of 5 --