Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 12.01.2023
Sr. No. 8
CORAM: H.H.J. SHRI. A.G. SANTANI (C.R. NO.11)
SU 1409/18
C/S 1769/22
NM 749/19
NM 1353/19
Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla for the plaintiff is present.
Adv. Mrs. J.V. Mhatre for defendant/MCGM is present.
Order below exhibit No. 01:
01. Perused Contempt NM No. 749/2019. Heard the learned
advocate for plaintiff on the maintainability of this NM along-with
the suit.
02. Having considered his submissions, at the outset, it is notable
that by filing this NM, the plaintiff contended that the concerned
Officer i.e. the respondents in this NM, intentionally made false
statement and tried to mislead this Court on the point of 'authority'
of the defendant/MCGM to proceed against the suit property, as it
is situated at private plot of land and is declared as 'Slum' area.
Consequently, the plaintiff prayed for an inquiry U/sec. 340 of the
Cr.P.C. and lodging of offences U/sec. 166, 167, 191, 192, 196, 199
and 200 of the IPC.
03. Taking into account the overall tenor of this NM, here it
would not be out of place to mention that at no point of time, the
learned predecessor of this Court ever opined as regards the alleged
efforts on behalf of the said Officers to have made false statement
before the Court or tried to mislead it. As such, he did not think it
fit to initiate the inquiry as contemplated U/sec. 340 of the Cr.P.C..
On the contrary, in view of the roznama dtd. 19.12.2018, it seems
that on that day, the then Dy. Collector Mr. Ajit Nairale was present
before this Court and submitted that the defendant has jurisdiction
to take the action against private property, which is declared as
'Slum'. On his statement, the learned predecessor of this Court
expressed in the roznama that the confusion of parties about the
authority of the defendant came to an end and Mr. Nairare was
discharged.
04. Now coming to the legal aspects, by this Contempt NM the
plaintiff asked for an inquiry U/sec. 340 of the Cr.P.C., on the
grounds which were never expressed by the then Presiding Officer
of this Court and as of now, there is no material to consider the
same. Simultaneously, the Offences defind U/sec. 166 and 167 of
the IPC are independent offences and the Offences U/sec. 196, 199
and 200 of the IPC pre-require 'complaint' of the concerned Court
for taking of 'cognizance' in view of section 195 of the Cr.P.C., which
is missing from the present set of facts.
05. The record further goes to show that the main NM is pending
since 2019. Time and again, the plaintiff was directed to proceed
-- 1 of 2 --
Exh. 07
with the said NM, wherein he failed and as such, it is pending for
dismissal order. Still, the fact remains that till today, the interim
Order is continued in favour of the plaintiff. In this manner, the
very progress of this matter is being hampered due to filing of this
Contempt NM in the suit and absence of the plaintiff. In the result,
the Contempt NM No. 749/2019 stands disposed of as 'not
maintainable' along-with the suit, leaving the plaintiff at liberty to
take appropriate steps, if he still wants to raise such aspects of the
matter, in proper form of the proceeding as per law.
The advocate for plaintiff requested for keeping back the matter.
KB LO at 03:28 pm.
Adv. Mr. M.R. Yadav for the plaintiff is present and filed the
application for change of caption and keeping the matter for Ch/s
hearing. TOR. It is marked at Exh. 07. O- Sufficient time is already
granted. Time and again, the plaintiff has been directed to proceed
with the matter and as he is failed, he was called upon to file his
written submissions, but in vain. Today, the NM is pending for
dismissal. Still, considering this application, the caption is changed
and he is called upon to file written submissions on the NM, subject
to costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand) to be deposited in favour
of the DLSA, Mumbai, till the next date. In default, the NM would
stand dismissed.
KB LO at 04:00 pm.
Advocate for the defendant orally requested for time to file Ch/s
reply. Time is granted till the next date.
Advocate for the plaintiff orally requested for reduction of costs. In
view of his submissions, the costs is reduced at Rs. 1,500/- (Rs. One
Thousand Five Hundred).
Adjourned for costs/compliance/Ch/s reply/written submission on
NM to 28.02.2023.
Judge
-- 2 of 2 --