Final Order 1

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: CNR NO. : MHCC01-003074-2020. .1. CH/S No. 476/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 660/2019.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 476 OF 2020.
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 660 OF 2019.
Mansoor Ali (Salim) Maqsood Ali. …...….......... …. PLAINTIFF.
V/s.
M.C.G.M.+1. ...……………………………….….. …. DEFENDANTS.
CORAM : Shri. A.G. Santani..
(Court Room No.11).
DATED : 04th November, 2022.
APPEARANCES :
Mr. Viraj Singh, Ld. Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mr. Sunil Khandagale, Ld. Advocate for the Defendants.
*****
01. The plaintiff has taken out this Chamber Summons (for
short the ‘Ch/s’), U/O. VI Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for
amendment in the plaint and for grant of perpetual injunction, against
the defendants from proceeding on the Speaking Order and the notice
dtd. 25.01.2020, issued U/s. 488 of the MMC Act. Perused the Ch/s., his
accompanying affidavit and say of the defendants. Heard both the sides.
02. Considering the record, the points for determination, along
- with my findings and the reasons therefor, are as under :
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
(i). Whether the proposed amendment is
necessary for deciding the real question
in controversy between the parties ?…. .....Yes.
(ii). What Order ? .............…....................... …. As per final Order.
-- 1 of 4 --
CNR NO. : MHCC01-003074-2020. .2. CH/S No. 476/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 660/2019.
REASONS FOR FINDINGS
AS TO POINT NO.1 :
03. By filing this Ch/s., the plaintiff's only anxiety is to bring on
record that after dismissal of the initial NM on 22.12.2019, he preferred
A.O. No. 31883/2019 before the Hon’ble High Court, wherein the Order
of status quo is passed. However, still, the defendant issued the notice,
dtd. 25.01.2020, U/s. 488 of the MMC Act. The suit premises is situated
at slum area. However, this being the position on 06.02.2020, defendant
No.2 visited the suit premises and threatened to demolish the same. In
the circumstances, the said notice is bad in law and therefore, he prayed
for the additional reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction against
the same. The defendants objected this Ch/s. mainly on the ground that
the initial NM is dismissed and the notice structure is unauthorized one.
As such, the proposed amendments are not maintainable.
04. Having considered the rival submissions, at the outset, it is
pertinent to note that initially, by filing this suit, the plaintiff challenged
the notice of dtd. 01.11.2018, issued U/s. 354-A of the MMC Act, and
the Speaking Order dtd. 30.11.2018,. It seems that the earlier NM, filed
against the said notice and the Speaking Order, came to be dismissed by
this Court and during pendency of this suit, the defendant issued notice
U/s. 488 of the MMC Act. So far as issuance of this notice is concerned,
it is not disputed by the defendant. More so, this is the event, occurred
subsequent to the filing of this suit. The suit is at initial stage, where the
trial is yet to commence. Certainly, it would be for the plaintiff alone to
establish that the said notice was unwarranted and it is bad in law. No
prejudice would be caused even to the defendants. On this background,
to adjudicate upon the suit issues effectively, I am of the opinion that
the proposed amendments only so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned,
-- 2 of 4 --
CNR NO. : MHCC01-003074-2020. .3. CH/S No. 476/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 660/2019.
may be considered. However, prayer clause (b) of the Ch/s, wherein the
plaintiff asked for granting of interim relief against the said notice, can
not be taken into account and therefore, to that extent, the Ch/s. stands
dismissed. Consequently, I answered point No. 1 in the affirmative and
in answer to point No. 2, I pass the following Order :
-: O R D E R :-
(i). Chamber Summons No. 476/2020 is made absolute
in terms of prayer Clause (a) only.
(ii). The plaintiff is called upon to carry out the proposed
amendment in the plaint, within two weeks from the
passing of this Order, and to file copy of amended plaint
simultaneously.
(iii). Chamber Summons No. 476/2020, accordingly, stands
disposed of.
{A.G. Santani}
Mumbai. Ad-hoc Judge,
Dated : 04.11.2022. City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 04.11.2022.
Transcribed on : 05.11.2022.
Signed on : 07.11.2022.
-- 3 of 4 --
CNR NO. : MHCC01-003074-2020. .4. CH/S No. 476/2020 in
L.C. Suit No. 660/2019.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
09.11.2022 at 4.35 p.m. Mrs. S.R.Mejari
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri A.G.Santani
(Court Room No.11).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 04.11.2022.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 07.11.2022.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 09.11.2022.
-- 4 of 4 --