Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010032682020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1175 OF 2020
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 3468 OF 2004
Mohammed H. Hemayandah ... Plaintiff
V/s.
1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI. RAJESH K. KHOMANE
CITY CIVIL COURT
GR. BOMBAY ( C.R.NO.06)
DATE : 03/01/2023
Adv. Tarang Jagtiani for the plaintiff.
Adv. Ms. Meena Dhuri for the defendants.
ORAL ORDER
1. By this notice of motion , the plaintiff is praying to tag the
present suit alongwith L.C. Suit No. 4857/2004.
2. It is the contention of the plaintiff that he has filed both
these suits against the defendants/BMC, challenging therein notice
dated 23.06.2004 issued under section 351 of the MMC Act and
development plan dated 13.10.2005 pertains to the structure of '
Hindmata Cinema Hall'. Both these suits are on today's board. L.C.Suit
No. 4857/2004 is at the stage of recording evidence of plaintiff and the
-- 1 of 3 --
2 N/M No.1175/2020
present suit is at the stage of hearing on compilation. According to the
plaintiff, the parties, subject matter and issues involved in both the suits
are one and same. Documents are also one and same. Therefore, by this
notice of motion, the plaintiff is praying to tag this suit alongwith Suit
No. 4857/2004. The defendant no.1/BMC filed say stating therein that
necessary order be passed. Whereas defendant no.2 has given no
objection. .
3. In both the suits, plaintiff has challenged notice dated
23.06.2004 issued under section 351 of the MMC Act and development
plan dated 13.10.2005. The impugned notice issued to the structure
which is part and parcel of Hindmata Cinema Hall. In L.C.Suit No.
4857/2004 the plaintiff has challenged the development plan, which
pertains to the Hindmaata Cinema Hall. Thus, the parties, subject
matter and issues are one and same in both the suits. L.C.suit No.
4857/2004 is at the stage of recording evidence, whereas the present
suit is at the stage of hearing on compilation. The documents produced
in both suits are common. Therefore, prayer of the plaintiff that both
suits tag together for recording of evidence in view of common
documents deserves to be allowed. Thus, I pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.1175/2020 is allowed in terms of
prayer clause (a).
3. Notice of Motion No.1175/2020 is disposed off.
(Rajesh K. Khomane)
Date03.01.2023 Judge,City Civil Court,
Gr. Bombay .
Dictated on : 03.01.2023
Typed on : 03.01.2023
Signed on :
-- 2 of 3 --
3 N/M No.1175/2020
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
04/01/2023 05.30 P.M. ( Mayuresh P. Tathe)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room No.)
HHJ Shri. R. K. Khomane (C.R.No.06)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
03/01/2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O.on
04/01/2023
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 04/01/2023
-- 3 of 3 --