Jagdish Ramchandra GawankarVsMCGM

Date: 31-01-2019
Business: Advocate Mr. V. T. Dubey for Plaintiff present and filed draft Notice of Motion along with affidavit in support. Leave granted
Advocate for BMC/Deft present.
Heard advocate Mr. V. T. Dubey for Plaintiff and advocate Ms. Hajare for BMC in respect of ad-interim relief of injunction against Defendant restraining it from demolishing or pulling down or removing the suit premises viz. House no.344, ground plus two upper floors area admeasuring about 1200 sq. ft, each floor, made up of B.M. Wall with A.C. sheet roof, situated at C.T.S. no.678, 678/1 Christian village, L.B.S. Road, Kurla (west) Mumbai in pursuance to the notice no.L/DO3L/165/351-MMC ACT/L19N01/18-01-2019 dated 21/01/2019.
Perused plaint, documents annexed to it.  Disputed notice shows that allegedly unauthorised construction of ground plus two floor structure admeasuring 9.90 meters X 12.40 meters having approximate height of 9.50 meters is made by using Ladi-coba, ladi-slab, B.M. Wall, M.S. angles etc.   Conveyance deed filed by Plaintiff on recored is in respect of only ground floor structure which was having four rooms in dilapidated condition.  In such circumstances, considering the conveyance deed and assessment bills filed on record having the date of first assessment since prior to 1957, it can be said that ground floor of notice structure is authorized and therefore the burden is casted on the shoulders of Plaintiff to prove the authorization of first floor and second floor from notice structure.  It is argued on behalf of Plaintiff that after issuing disputed notice Plaintiff has replied it but yet designated officer has to pass speaking order.  Learned advocate for Defendant submitted that, she has no instructions about the fact that whether speaking order is passed or not and if the speaking order is not passed then Plaintiff\''s claim will become premature.
I have given serious consideration to the arguments and documents.  As speaking order is yet to be passed, it becomes clear that reply of the notice given by Plaintiff is yet to be considered by designated officer, hence I find that ad-interim injunction as prayed in prayer clause (a) of NM till passing reasoned speaking order by designated officer, hence ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) of NM is granted till passing reasoned speaking officer by designated officer and till filing its copy before the court so that Plaintiff can have opportunity to challenge said speaking order.
Parties to act on authenticated copy of roznama duly signed by Sheristedar.
Case is adjourned to 19/03/2019 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM FOR HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2019

Date: 19-03-2019
Business: Advocate Mr. Dubey for Plaintiff present and filed registered NM No.511/19 with affidavit in support, t.o.r.
Advocate for BMC/Deft present.
Earlier order to continue till next date.
Case is adjourned to 04/07/2019 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2019

Date: 04-07-2019
Business: As court is busy in NM hearing in suit No. 1406/17. The Board is discharged.
Earlier order to continue till next date.
The case is adjourned to 16.08.2019 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2019

Date: 16-08-2019
Business: Advocate V.T.Dubey for plaintiff present.
Advocate Ms. Mhatre for defendant/MCGM present and sought time. Time is granted.
Earlier order to continue till next date.
The case is adjourned to 05.11.2019  for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 05-11-2019

Date: 05-11-2019
Business: Advocate Mohd. Rashid for plaintiff present.
Advocate Ms. Mhatre for defendant/MCGM present and sought time. Time is granted.
Earlier order to continue till next date.
The case is adjourned to 21.01.2020 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2020

Date: 21-01-2020
Business: (In charge Court to C.R. no.11)
Adv. Mr. Ansari for plaintiff present.
Adv. for deft./MCGM absent.
Earlier order to continue till next date.
Matter is adjd. for NM reply on 06.03.2020.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 06-03-2020

Date: 06-03-2020
Business: (In charge Court to C.R. no.11)
Adv. Mr. V.T. Dubey for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mrs. Mhatre for deft./MCGM present.
Earlier order to continue till next date.
Matter is adjd. for NM reply on 10.06.2020.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2020

Date: 10-06-2020
Business: National lockdown
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 25-06-2020

Date: 25-06-2020
Business: Adjd. to
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2020

Date: 07-09-2020
Business: adjd.to
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2020

Date: 10-11-2020
Reason For Adjournment: Adjourned due to Covid-19
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2021

Date: 29-01-2021
Business: Adv. Ansari for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mhatre for deft./MCGM present and requested for short time to file reply.
Matter is adjourned for NM reply on 22.03.2021.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2021

Date: 22-03-2021
Business: Adv. Mr. V.T. Dubey for plaintiff present and requested short adjournment.
Adv. Ms. Mhatre for deft./MCGM present.
Earlier order if any, to continue till next date.
Matter is adjourned for reply to 23.06.21.
                                                                               Judge
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2021

Date: 23-06-2021
Reason For Adjournment: Adjourned due to Covid-19
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2021

Date: 18-08-2021
Business: CORAM  H.H.J. SHRI. D. D. ALMALE, (C.R.NO.06)
(Matter pertains to C.R. No.11)
None for plaintiff.
Adv Mhatre h/f Adv. Khandagale for deft./MCGM present.
Earlier order if any, to continue till next date.
Matter is adjd. For NM reply to 08.10.2021.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2021

Date: 08-10-2021
Business: Adv.V.T.Dubey  for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mr. Khandagale for deft./MCGM present.
Earlier order if any, to continue till next date.
Matter is adjd. For NM reply to  29.11.2021.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 29-11-2021

Date: 29-11-2021
Business: Adv. Mr. V. T. Dubey for Plaintiff present.
	Adv. Mr. Khandagale for Defendant/BMC present.
	Earlier order to continue till the next date.
	Matter adj. to 21/01/2022 for NM Reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2022

Date: 21-01-2022
Business: Adv. Ms. Vijaya Rani for plaintiff is present.
Adv. Mr. Khandagale for defendant/MCGM is present.
Adv. for defendant orally requested for time to file NM reply. Granted.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till the next date.
Adjourned for NM reply to 25.03.2022.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 25-03-2022

Date: 25-03-2022
Business: Adv. Ms. Vijayarani Prasad for plaintiff is present.
Adv. Mr. Khandagale for defendant/MCGM is present and orally requested for time to file NM reply. Granted strictly as a last chance.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till the next date.
Adjourned for NM reply and WS to 18.07.2022.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 18-07-2022

Date: 18-07-2022
Business: Adv. Ms. Vijayarani Prasad for the plaintiff is present.
Adv. Mr. Khandagale for defendant/MCGM is present and orally requested for time to file NM reply. Sufficient time is already granted. Hence, this request is discarded. The suit is proceeded without NM reply and WS of the defendant.
Heard both the sides on NM No. 511/2019. The following order follows on NM No. 511/2019:
ORDER
       Having considered there submissions, at the outset, it seems that in view of the notice dated 21.01.2019, the plaintiff filed his reply on 28.01.2019 and admittedly, as of now, the Speaking Order is awaited in the matter. The learned advocate for the plaintiff made the statement at bar that till date, no Speaking Order is communicated to the plaintiff. Even the defendant did not file reply on this NM. Needless to say that having received the notice reply, it was required from the defendant to consider the same and to communicate his response/outcome, in either form, to the plaintiff. However, this procedure is not followed. Nor, till date, the passing of speaking order is communicated on the record. This was the position prevailing even at the time of passing of earlier order, which is continued till date. On this background, it can safely be concluded that the defendant is yet to follow the due process of law before proceeding against the notice structure. In the result, the defendant is called upon to consider the notice reply dated 28.01.2019 filed by the plaintiff and to pass the speaking afresh, if he so desires. In the meantime, he is restrained to proceed against the notice structure, without following the due process of law, on the basis of the suit notice dated 21.01.2019. In case, the said order goes against the plaintiff, the effect and operation thereof may be stayed for the period of two weeks from the date of its communication to the plaintiff, so as to enable him to exercise the remedies legally available to him. In the light of these observations, NM No. 511/2019 is disposed of as partly allowed.
Adjourned for filing affidavit of documents to 14.09.2022.
Next Purpose: FILING  AFFIDAVIT OF DOCUMENT
Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2022

Date: 14-09-2022
Business: None present for the plaintiff.
Adv. Khandagale for defendant/MCGM is present. He submitted that in view of Order on NM, the suit may also be disposed of. The advocate for the plaintiff is absent to verify this position.
Adjourned for filing affidavit of documents (LN) to 09.11.2022.
Next Purpose: FILING  AFFIDAVIT OF DOCUMENT
Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2022

Date: 09-11-2022
Business: None present for the plaintiff.
Adv. Mr. Khandagale for defendant/MCGM is present.
KB LO at 02:45 pm.
Adv. Mr. V.T. Dubey for the plaintiff is present.
Mr. Nitin Baburao Kamble, EA, B&F, \''L\'' Ward  is present. He made the statement that after considering the notice reply and documents the Office of defendant is going to pass the Speaking Order in due course. He submitted that even after passing of the Speaking Order, if it goes against the plaintiff, the defendant would not proceed against the notice structure for the period of two weeks from the date of its passing. His statement is taken on record. On his statement, the advocate for the plaintiff requested for placing the matter before National Lok-adalat for the withdrawal of the suit. He also undertook to secure presence of the plaintiff on that day. By consent of the parties, issuance of separate notice is dispensed with and the suit is referred to the ensuing Lok-adalat.
Adjourned for Lok-adalat to 12.11.2022.
Next Purpose: Lok-Nyayalay
Next Hearing Date: 12-11-2022

Date: 12-11-2022
Business: NATIONAL LOK ADALAT HELD ON 12.11.2022 (PANEL-VII)
Matter pertains to CR No.11
Plaintiff present
Adv V.T. Dubey  for plaintiff present.
Shri Kandangale for defendant/BMC present.
Terms of compromise / settlement
Plaintiff and his Advocate are present and Voluntarily submitted that suit may be withdrawal and disposed off in view of the statement given by the concern officer of corporation on dated 09.11.2022. Permission granted. Accordingly suit stands disposed off as withdrawn in view of the noting of dated 09.11.2022. Proceeding closed.
Nature Of Disposal: OTHERWISE
Disposal Date: 12-11-2022

NOTICE OF MOTION/100511/2019

Filing Number: 101218/2019
Filing Date: 29-01-2019
First Hearing Date: 31st January 2019
Decision Date: 12th November 2022
Court Number And Judge: 11-COURT 11  ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE