Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: ST 7617/19
SU
1402/20Daily
Status
IN THE COURT
OF :COURT 9 ADDL
SESSIONS JUDGE
Case
No. :CHAMBER
SUMMONS/0102147
/2018
Mr. Shriram
Ramlakhan
Yadav Vs 1.Mr.
Lalta Prasad
Ramlakhan Yadav 2.
The Commissioner
Date : 09-03-2020
Business:Advocate
Shivani Kunder for
Plaintiff present and
sought time to file
reply to NM taken out
by Defendant.
Advocate Rupesh
Bhalshankar @
Defendants present
and submitted that he
will file reply on
Chamber Summons
itself. ORDER ON
CHS NO.2147 OF
2018 This Chamber
Summons is taken
out by Plaintiff for
amendment in the
plaint to implead
commissioner of
BMC as Defendant
no.2 in this suit and
for claiming
permanent as well as
temporary injunction
against proposed
Defendant no.2 along
with consequential
amendments. Plaintiff
has filed affidavit in
support of Notice of
Motion contending
that at the instance of
Defendant, officers of
&amp#039M&a
Daily Status
IN THE COURT OF :COURT 9 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
Case No. :SUIT/0100973/2020
Smt. Anusaya Laxman Pawar Vs Shri. Laxman Tukaram Pawar
Date : 12-03-2020
Business:Advocate Mr. P. R. Moses for Plaintiff present Advocate Mr. C. J. Doveson for
Defendant present and filed vakalatnama, t.o.r. Plaintiff&amp#039s advocate and
Defendant&amp#039s advocate filed consent terms, t.o.r. VERIFICATION Plaintiff and
Defendant present with their advocates. Plaintiff and Defendant admitted contents of consent
terms hence consent terms are verified. Parties are directed to sign consent terms today before
the Court. ORDER BELOW EXH.1 1. Suit stands disposed off in terms of consent terms Exh.3.
2. Parties are directed to get registered this decree by annexing the relinquishment deed in
question to it, so that Plaintiff can get the fruits of the relinquishment deed after paying
necessary stamp duty. 3. Issue C/f refund certificate as per rules.
Nature of Disposal:CONSENT DECREE
-- 1 of 7 --
mp;amp#039 ward of
BMC visited suit
premises on
03/03/2018 and to
dispossess Plaintiff
from it as it is in
dilapidated condition,
unsafe for staying. It
is pointed out that
earlier also BMC was
impleaded as
Defendant in this suit
however advocate of
BMC submitted
before the court that
no demolition notice
was issued by BMC
against Plaintiff
therefore Plaintiff has
deleted Defendant
no.2 from the suit.
Thereafter, officers of
BMC issued notice
dated 19/05/2018 to
Plaintiff, hence
according to Plaintiff
BMC is necessary
party to this suit.
Defendant has
resisted Chamber
Summons by filing
reply contending that
false contentions are
raised in Chamber
Summons and
Plaintiff is intending
to amend the suit for
fresh cause of action
against BMC.
Previously Plaintiff
had deleted BMC
from this suit. Heard
Plaintiff&amp#0
39s advocate and
Defendant&amp
#039s advocate. If
really any notice
dated 19/05/2018
would have been
issued by BMC
against Plaintiff u/s
351 of BMC Act, it
was expected that
Plaintiff immediately
-- 2 of 7 --
should have
challenged said
notice by filing the
suit before BMC
court which is
specially established
for entertaining the
disputes which arise
due to issuance of
various notices by
BMC. Any how, this
court being special
court for senior
citizen and this court
not being the court
for entertaining the
suit against BMC, I
find that BMC can not
be impleaded as
party to this suit.
Further, the notice
dated 19/05/2018 is
not related to the
cause of action of
this suit and as
already observed,
Plaintiff will have to
file separate suit for
challenging said
notice and said suit
will have to be filed in
BMC court. For all
above reasons, I find
that when once
Plaintiff has deleted
ed BMC from this suit
again for fresh notice
issued by BMC, said
authority can not be
impleaded in this suit
and Plaintiff may file
separate suit
challenging s aid
notice however it is
made clear that said
suit will be subject to
law of limitation.
Hence, I proceed to
pass following order-
ORDER Chamber
Summons no.2147 of
2018 stands
disposed
off/dismissed. Case
-- 3 of 7 --
is adjourned to
08/04/2020 for NM
reply.
Nature of
Disposal:DISMISSE
D
Daily Status
IN THE COURT
OF :COURT 9 ADDL
SESSIONS JUDGE
Case
No. :CHAMBER
SUMMONS/0102147
/2018
Mr. Shriram
Ramlakhan
Yadav Vs 1.Mr.
Lalta Prasad
Ramlakhan Yadav 2.
The Commissioner
Date : 09-03-2020
Business:Advocate
Shivani Kunder for
Plaintiff present and
sought time to file
reply to NM taken out
by Defendant.
Advocate Rupesh
Bhalshankar @
Defendants present
and submitted that he
will file reply on
Chamber Summons
itself. ORDER ON
CHS NO.2147 OF
2018 This Chamber
Summons is taken
out by Plaintiff for
amendment in the
plaint to implead
commissioner of
BMC as Defendant
no.2 in this suit and
for claiming
permanent as well as
temporary injunction
against proposed
Defendant no.2 along
with consequential
amendments. Plaintiff
has filed affidavit in
support of Notice of
Motion contending
that at the instance of
Defendant, officers of
-- 4 of 7 --
&amp#039M&a
mp;amp#039 ward of
BMC visited suit
premises on
03/03/2018 and to
dispossess Plaintiff
from it as it is in
dilapidated condition,
unsafe for staying. It
is pointed out that
earlier also BMC was
impleaded as
Defendant in this suit
however advocate of
BMC submitted
before the court that
no demolition notice
was issued by BMC
against Plaintiff
therefore Plaintiff has
deleted Defendant
no.2 from the suit.
Thereafter, officers of
BMC issued notice
dated 19/05/2018 to
Plaintiff, hence
according to Plaintiff
BMC is necessary
party to this suit.
Defendant has
resisted Chamber
Summons by filing
reply contending that
false contentions are
raised in Chamber
Summons and
Plaintiff is intending
to amend the suit for
fresh cause of action
against BMC.
Previously Plaintiff
had deleted BMC
from this suit. Heard
Plaintiff&amp#0
39s advocate and
Defendant&amp
#039s advocate. If
really any notice
dated 19/05/2018
would have been
issued by BMC
against Plaintiff u/s
351 of BMC Act, it
was expected that
-- 5 of 7 --
Plaintiff immediately
should have
challenged said
notice by filing the
suit before BMC
court which is
specially established
for entertaining the
disputes which arise
due to issuance of
various notices by
BMC. Any how, this
court being special
court for senior
citizen and this court
not being the court
for entertaining the
suit against BMC, I
find that BMC can not
be impleaded as
party to this suit.
Further, the notice
dated 19/05/2018 is
not related to the
cause of action of
this suit and as
already observed,
Plaintiff will have to
file separate suit for
challenging said
notice and said suit
will have to be filed in
BMC court. For all
above reasons, I find
that when once
Plaintiff has deleted
ed BMC from this suit
again for fresh notice
issued by BMC, said
authority can not be
impleaded in this suit
and Plaintiff may file
separate suit
challenging s aid
notice however it is
made clear that said
suit will be subject to
law of limitation.
Hence, I proceed to
pass following order-
ORDER Chamber
Summons no.2147 of
2018 stands
disposed
-- 6 of 7 --
off/dismissed. Case
is adjourned to
08/04/2020 for NM
reply.
Nature of
Disposal:DISMISSE
D
-- 7 of 7 --