Interim Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 Ad-Interim Order on Draft N/M in SU 1431/20
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI.
AD-INTERIM ORDER ON
DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION
IN
SUIT NO. 1431 OF 2020
(CNR no. MHCC01-003394-2020)
Best Quarry Hanumanji Seva Sanstha
Through the Chairman
Mr. Ravi Ramdhani Yadav,
Age : 31 years, Occ. : Business
residing at Gulati Compound,
Near Chandivali Farm Road,
Sakinaka, Mumbai-400072.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]...
Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Nahar Builders Ltd.,
Through its Director
Mr. Sukhraj Babulal Nahar
Age about 75 years,
Having office at B-1, Mahalaxmi Chambers
22, Bhulabhai Desai Road,
Mahalaxmi, Mumbai 400026.
]
]
]
]
]
]
]...
Defendant
Appearances:-
Ld. Advocate Mr. S. P. Shrivastava for the Plaintiff.
Ld. Advocate Mr. Bhadang for Defendant.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI C. V. MARATHE
(Court Room no. 4)
DATED : 6th January, 2021.
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Ad-Interim Order on Draft N/M in SU 1431/20
O R A L O R D E R
1. Perused plaint, documents annexed thereto, Notice of
Motion and heard both sides. There exists a Hanuman Temple in the
private land of the Defendant/Builder (hereinafter “Suit Land”). The
Plaintiff Society claims right to worship therein due to the faith in
the said temple. It is alleged in the plaint that the defendant/builder
is attempting to demolish the said temple and he has already
demolished ota, store room, room of pujari and the shed
appurtenant to the said temple. According to the Ld. Advocate for
the plaintiff, the acts of the defendant in demolishing the temple
will hurt religious sentiments of hindu people in the locality and
therefore, following prayers are made in the Notice of Motion :
(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to grant injunction
restraining the Defendants their servants and agents
from demolishing the Hanuman Mandir and/or any
part thereof and/or shifting the statue of Hanumanji
situated at Gulati Stone Colony, Near Chandivali Farm
Road, Sakinaka, Mumbai 400 072 and/or disturbing
and/or interfering the peaceful worship in the
Hanuman Temple by the devotees in any manner
whatsoever.
(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the suit this
Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the Defendants,
their servants and agents to restore the ota, store
room, room of the Pujari and the shed demolished by
the Defendants appurtinent to the Hanuman Mandir
situated at Gulati Stone Colony, Near Chandivali Farm
Road, Sakinaka, Mumbai 400072.
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Ad-Interim Order on Draft N/M in SU 1431/20
2. Ld. Advocate for the defendant has argued that the land
where the temple is located, is a private land of the defendant, all
the hutment dwellers have been removed already from the land and
the defendant will suffer irreparable loss if he will not be permitted
to make construction on the suit land. He has also pointed out that
even though plaintiff Sanstha is registered as a Society, the temple is
not registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, none of
the erstwhile hutment dwellers in the suit land claimed claim any
right on the temple and therefore, the plaintiff has neither a legal
title to the structure of the temple nor has easementary right over
the suit land for access to the said temple and therefore, the
plaintiff is not entitled for any ad-interim relief.
3. After hearing both sides and upon perusal of the
documentary evidence filed by both sides, it can be seen that the
temple is not registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Plaintiff has not produced any document to show that structure of
the temple is authorized construction. In the plaint, the notice dated
24.10.2008 issued by Deputy Collector (encroachment/removal) to
Hanuman temple is annexed whereby direction was given to show
authorization of the structure. The plaintiff has not produced any
document showing that said notice was replied or that the structure
of the temple is authorized by local authority i.e. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai. From the aforesaid, it can be
gathered that there is no documentary evidence to show that the
structure of the temple is an authorized structure and the plaintiff
society has legal right to claim ownership and right of entry in the
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Ad-Interim Order on Draft N/M in SU 1431/20
said temple which is located in the private property of the
defendant. The dispute in Civil Court needs to be adjudicated on
facts and not on the sentiment. No religion preaches that worship
prayer should be offered in unauthorized place of religion. The
plaintiff seeking equitable relief of injunction has to make out
prima
facie case in support of his claim. In this matter in absence of any
document showing authorization of the structure of temple in the
suit land, in absence of any easementary right of way to approach
the said temple and in absence of registration of the temple under
Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950, the plaintiff is not entitled for any
ad-interim relief. Hence, following order:
ORDER
1. Ad-Interim Relief is rejected.
2. The plaintiff is directed to register the Notice of Motion for
statistical purpose.
(C. V. Marathe)
Judge,
Date : 06.01.2021. City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 05.01.2021
Transcribed on : 05.01.2021
Signed by HHJ on : 06.01.2021
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Ad-Interim Order on Draft N/M in SU 1431/20
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 06.01.2021 at 12.00 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. G. P. Acharekar
Name of the Judge (With
Court Room no.)
HHJ Shri. C. V. Marathe
C.R. no.04
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
06/01/2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
06/01/2021
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
06/01/2021
-- 5 of 5 --