Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION
IN
L.C.SUIT NO. 422 OF 2018
CNR MHCC010021662018
1.Mrs.Pratima Nandlal Thakkar and Anr. )...Plaintiff.
V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai )...Defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. KISHORE M.JAISWAL
(C.R. NO.08)
DATE : 14.02.2018.
Ld.Adv. Mr. Kudalkar for the plaintiffs.
Ld. Adv.Mrs Kamble for BMC/defendant
ORAL ORDER
Perused the notice of motion which is supported by an
affidavit. Also perused the documents filed by the plaintiff. The
defendant i.e. the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ( in short
MCGM' ) has not filed the reply to the notice of motion. However the
MCGM has filed the documents on affidavit for opposing the adinterim
relief.
2. In the suit, the order dated 3/8/2013 passed by the MCGM
is under challenge. The plaintiffs have placed on record the documents
i.e. Assessment bill of the notice structure. In the speaking order , in
column no. 14 the Designated officer of Ward 'T' of MCGM has given
reasons that the copy of assessment does not show existence of notice
structure prior to datum lime i.e. 01/04/1962 ( for commercial).
-- 1 of 3 --
2
However, on perusal of the assessment bill, the copy of which is placed
on record at Exhibit'H' page no. 74 of the plaint, the first date of
assessment as reflected is 31.3.1961. So also other documents viz
Lease agreement and the documents from revenue record shows that
the structure was in existence since long. Therefore, the reasons in
column no.14 of the speaking order at this stage, does not appears to be
the correct one. The plaintiff has also placed on record the copy of
application dated 28/9/2017 wherein the plaintiff has applied for repair
permission from the MCGM. There is nothing to indicate that said
repair application is rejected by the MCGM. The reasons / remarks with
regard to the said application, in column no. 19 of the speaking order ,
appears to be vague as the MCGM could have stated whether the
application is rejected or not. If the said application is pending,then the
wordings of the notice as it appears to be “unauthorised structural
repair works” reveals that even the stand of the MCGM is that, the
plaintiff is carrying out the repair works. So unless the MCGM files the
detail reply to this notice of motion, the notice structure needs to be
protected and therefore adinterim relief as per prayer clause (a) is
granted till next date i.e. 22/02/2018 on which date the MCGM shall
positively filed the reply.
Leave granted to register the notice of motion.
(Kishore M. Jaiswal )
Addl. Sessions Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Gr.Mumbai.
Date:14/02/2018.
Dictated on : 14/02/2018.
Transcribed on : 14/02/2018.
Signed on : 14/02/2018.
-- 2 of 3 --
3
“Certified to be True And Correct copy of the Original.
Signed Judgment/Order.”
Upload Date And Time
14.02.2018 at 1.00 noon
Name of Stenographer
(Mrs. V.V.Mhatre)
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
H.H.J Shri Kishore M. Jaiswal
(C.R. No.08)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT / ORDER
14/02/2018
JUDGMENT / ORDER signed by
P.O.on
14.02.2018
JUDGMENT / ORDER uploaded on 14.02.2018
-- 3 of 3 --