Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Suit No. 483-2018
Order in NM No. 846-2018
MHCC010029282018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 846 OF 2018
IN
SUIT NO. 483 OF 2018
Mehjabeen Iqbal Baig ]….Plaintiff
V/s.
1. Ayub Murtaza Khan Miyan Khan Surti,
2. Mumbai Building Repair and
Reconstruction Board,
3. Executive Engineer, (C-1 Div./MBRRB),
4. MHADA ]....Defendants
Appearances :
Learned Adv. Shoaib Memon for plaintiff.
Learned Adv. Shivangi S. Rayak h/f Adv. Kazi for defendant No.1.
CORAM : SHRI. ARVIND. M. BHANDARWAR
JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT
(C.R.NO.09)
DATE : 20th DECEMBER, 2025
ORDER
( Notice of Motion for Injunction)
1. The present Notice of Motion is filed for injunction
restraining defendant No.1 from entering into or trying to take forcible
possession or acting upon the suit premises i.e. Room No. 07 i.e. suit
property.
2. I have framed the following points for my consideration
and determination and decided the same for the reasons to follow :
-- 1 of 4 --
2 Suit No. 483-2018
Order in NM No. 846-2018
Sr.
No.
Points Findings
1. Whether the plaintiff has made out a
prima facie case?
In the Negative
2. Whether the balance of convenience
lies in favour of granting injunction?
In the Negative
3. Whether irreparable injury would be
caused to the plaintiffs if injunction is
refused?
In the Negative
4. What order ? NM is Rejected.
REASONS
3. The plaintiff is praying for relief of injunction, hence, needs
to satisfy the following three conditions :
i] Existence of prima facie case as pleaded,
ii] Balance of convenience,
iii] Irreparable loss.
4. Heard Adv. Shoaib Memon for plaintiff. During course of
arguments, the plaintiff has made a statement and also contended that
Room No.07 i.e. suit property is in possession of MHADA and MHADA is
not handing over the possession to the plaintiffs, even though
possession was taken from the plaintiffs. Adv. Shivangi S. Rayak for
defendant No.1 is present and he submitted that the possession of the
suit property is with defendant No.1. The order below Exh.01 was
passed on 09.03.2018 and the plaintiffs made apprehension that after
completion of the repairs, the defendant No.1 may take forceful
possession of the property. The Court has further recorded that
undisputedly the suit premises is in possession of MHADA for repairs.
5. In view of the current situation, relief against defendant
No.1 for disturbing the possession of Room No.07 does not arise. Notice
of Motion is pending since 2018. The relief claimed becomes
-- 2 of 4 --
3 Suit No. 483-2018
Order in NM No. 846-2018
infructuous. There is no dispute that possession is with MHADA. As the
possession is with the MHADA, the question of granting injunction does
not arise. Thus, there is no prima facie case in favour of plaintiff. No
prejudice or irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff and
balance of convenience does not lie in favour of plaintiff. Notice of
Motion is not maintainable. Thus, I answered point Nos. 1 to 3 in the
negative and accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order :
ORDER
1. The Notice of Motion No. 846 of 2018 stands rejected.
2. The Notice of Motion is disposed of accordingly.
3. The order is digitally signed; hence, it be uploaded on Case
Information System (CIS) and the printout of the digitally signed
order, additionally signed by me be kept on record as the physical
record is maintained by the Court.
(Arvind. M. Bhandarwar)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
Date: 20.12.2025 Gr. Bombay.
Dictated on : 20.12.2025
Transcribed on : 24.12.2025
Checked on : 24.12.2025
Signed on : 24.12.2025
-- 3 of 4 --
4 Suit No. 483-2018
Order in NM No. 846-2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
01.01.2026 At 3.00 P.M. Mrs. Poonam Y. Pawar
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room Number)
HHJ SHRI. ARVIND. M. BHANDARWAR
JUDGE, CITY CIVIL COURT
(C.R.NO.09)
Date of pronouncement of
Judgment/ Order
20.12.2025
Judgment/Order signed by P.O.
on
24.12.2025
Judgment/Order uploaded on 01.01.2026
-- 4 of 4 --