Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: Draft N/m in Suit No. 139/2018. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION
IN
SUIT NO. 139 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC01-000899-2018)
Asif Khan ...Plaintif
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Defendants
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.11).
DATE : 1st FEBRUARY, 2020.
Mr. Shinde, Advocate for Plaintif absent).
Mrs. Tondwalkar, Advocate for Defendants / MCGM.
ORDER
This is a motion taken out by plaintif to challenge
notice issued by defendant MCGM dated 09/08/2017.
2. Perused short reply with list and documents
submitted by MCGM vide Exh.2 and 3. Ld. advocate for
plaintif and plaintif are absent since three dates. In view of
last roznama, Exh.2 and 3 is treated as written statement.
3. Plaintif has challenged the above notice. Ground
plus frst foor admeasuring 13 x 13 sq.ft. situated at Budha
Master Chawl No.14 at Kurla is hereinafter referred as 'suit
property'. It is averred that impugned structure is authorized
-- 1 of 4 --
Draft N/m in Suit No. 139/2018. 2 Order.
structure and aforestated notice be declared as void.
4. Ld. advocate Tondwalkar for MCGM submits that
there is no reply given by plaintif. Therefore speaking order
came to be issued by the designated ofcer on 13/09/2017.
The notice for demolition under Section 488 of MMC Act is also
issued on 08/01/2018. There is no document submitted by
plaintif in respect of sanction plan or authorization of
structure. It is requested to reject the motion.
REASONS FOR ORDER
5. On perusal of entire documents, document no.12
and 13 as mentioned on Page No.20 i.e. photographs and
letter dated 21/07/2017 are not annexed by plaintif, despite
mentioned in list.
6. On perusal of map drawn on Page No.43 in notice
dated 09/08/2017, it clearly shown ground plus frst foor, and
horizontal extension of frst foor i.e. 6 x 2.5 x 3 mtr. in height.
Plaintif claims his possession as per photo-pass No. 16467
and 62425 which clearly indicate area of the suit property is
13 X 13 = 169 sq.ft. There is no reference of frst foor or
extension of gallery as shown in map in notice dated
09/08/2017.
7. Following points are necessary to consider i.e.
A) Plaintif is failed to fle reply to the impugned
notice.
B) Speaking order dated 13/09/2017 came to be
-- 2 of 4 --
Draft N/m in Suit No. 139/2018. 3 Order.
pronounced after one month of impugned notice.
C) No photograph of the suit structure was fled by the
plaintif despite mentioned in the list.
D) Detail description of the suit premises alongwith
HLW Height, Length, Width) of suit structure is
given by the plaintif in the plaint.
E) The description as mentioned in plaint is contrary
to area shown in photo-pass and authorization of
hut structure.
F) Hut number is not given in various light bills
annexed by plaintif.
8. Considering all aforesaid grounds, there is no prima
facie case in favour of plaintif. The suit structure i.e. frst
foor alongwith its extension appears to be unauthorized
construction. Obviously, balance of convenience lies in favour
of defendant. It will cause no irreparable loss to the plaintif,
as frst foor appear to be illegal. Resultantly, motion deserves
to be dismissed. Hence the order :
- ORDER -
1. Notice of motion at draft level stands dismissed.
2. Notice of motion at draft level disposed of
accordingly.
3. Draft N/m be registered for statistical purpose.
G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 01/02/2020. Mumbai.
-- 3 of 4 --
Draft N/m in Suit No. 139/2018. 4 Order.
1. Dictated on : 01/02/2020.
2. Transcribed on : 03/02/2020.
3. Signed on : 03/02/2020.
4. Delivered to Certifed :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
05/02/2020. 11.23 a.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni
Name of the Judge with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri G.G.Bhansali.
Court Room No.11).
Date of Pronouncement of
Judgment/Order
01/02/2020.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 03/02/2020.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 05/02/2020.
-- 4 of 4 --