Order 2

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT GREATER BOMBAY
ORDER BELOW EXH.4
IN
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 532 OF 2020
CNR NO. MHCC01-001378-2020
IN
L.C.SUIT NO. 284 OF 2020
Nitin Machhindranath Acharya …. Plaintiff
V/s.
Municipal Corporation of
Gr.Mumbai. ...Defendants
CORAM: HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. R. B. PARVEKAR
CITY CIVIL COURT
GR. MUMBAI
DATE : January 12th, 2024
Adv. Mr. Aarti Sharma h/f Thorat for the plaintiff.
Adv. Ms.Meena Dhuri for the defendants/BMC.
ORAL ORDER
1. Read application and say. Heard both the sides.
2. By this application, the plaintiff seeks time of 8
weeks to approach before Hon’ble High Court against order
passed in Notice of motion No.532/2020 by this Court today.
Defendants/BMC objected the present application.
..2/-
-- 1 of 4 --
.. 2 ..
3. On perusal of record and proceedings, it appears that
during the pendency of the suit for declaration and injunction,
the plaintiff seeks protection order against implementation of
notice and order issued by the defendants/ BMC. The said
interim relief sought by the plaintiff is rejected by this Court
today. Therefore, the plaintiff seeks time to challenge the said
order before the Hon’ble High Court.
4. Learned advocate for the plaintiff submitted before
Court that if time for challenging order is not given to the
plaintiff, then it will defeat right to appeal. If time is not given,
defendants/BMC may take coercive action for demolition of
notice structure. If notice structure is demolished, then very
purpose of filing present suit will be defeated. Defendants/BMC
objected the submissions raised on behalf of the plaintiff.
5. It is settled principle of law that every litigant who is
aggrieved by the order of the Court of the first instance has a
legitimate right to move the higher Court ask for redress, and
therefore, a reasonable opportunity should normally be given in
that behalf to all the litigants, provided of course the prayer on
the face of if does not appear to be frivolous or vexatious. In
the light of settled principle submissions raised on behalf of the
plaintiff found to be acceptable one.
..3/-
-- 2 of 4 --
.. 3 ..
6. It is settled principle of law that equal opportunity
should be given to both the parties to challenge the order
passed by the Court before the Hon'ble Appellate Authority. If
opportunity by granting time for preferring appropriate
application before the Hon'ble High Court is granted to the
plaintiff, the it will curtail the multiplicity of the litigation.
Considering the submissions, raised on behalf of the plaintiff it
is just and equitable in the eye of law to grant sufficient time to
the plaintiff for challenging interim order before the Hon'ble
High Court. Accordingly, I pass the following order
ORDER
1. Time for challenging order passed in Notice of motion
No.532/2020 is granted till 29.01.2024.
2. The defendants/BMC are directed not to take coercive
action and not to act upon impugned notice dated
29.09.2018 and order dated 09.09.2019 in respect of the
suit premises till 29.01.2024.
3. Both the parties to take note of this order.
Date-12/01/2024 (R. B. Parvekar)
Ad-hoc Judge, City Civil Court
Gr. Mumbai
..4/-
-- 3 of 4 --
.. 4 ..
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
16/01/2024 11.30 a.m. ( Mayuresh
P. Tathe)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
HHJ Shri. R. B. Parvekar (C.R.No.06)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
12/01/2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
15/01/2024
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 16/01/2024
../-
-- 4 of 4 --