Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: NM 1350 of 2019 in
L.C.SU 726 of 2019 1 Date : 16.03.2026
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1350 OF 2019
(CNR NO.MHCC01-003503-2019)
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 726 OF 2019
Mrs. Ankita Ashok Gaikwad ] …. Plaintiff
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ] …. Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
PRAKASH A. SABLE
C.R.NO. : 08.
DATE : 16.03.2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Ld. Adv. Rupesh Bhalshankar for plaintiff.
2) Ld. Adv. Amit Kapse h/f Adv. Martina Sakpal for defendant No. 1
and 2/State.
3) Ld. Adv. Twinkal Kalla h/f. Adv. Tushar Goradia for defendant
No.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORAL ORDER
(DICTATED IN OPEN COURT)
1. The plaintiff has taken out this Notice of Motion under Order
XXXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a temporary
injunction against the defendants, their servants, agents, or any person
claiming through them, from dispossessing the plaintiff or obstructing
her possession of the suit premises.
-- 1 of 6 --
NM 1350 of 2019 in
L.C.SU 726 of 2019 2 Date : 16.03.2026
2. In short, it is the case of the plaintiff that Room No. 16/A/302,
Sangharsh Nagar, Chandivali, Andheri (East), Mumbai is owned and
possessed by her by virtue of a sale executed by the original occupant,
Shri Pandurang Babu Pawar, on 07.11.2016. Further, Shri Pandurang
Babu Pawar executed a Power of Attorney as well as an Affidavit-cum-
No Objection on 08.11.2016, thereby giving his consent for transfer of
the suit premises in the name of the plaintiff after lapse of the requisite
period.
3. It is further contended that, the plaintiff, along with her son and
daughter, is in peaceful occupation and possession of the suit premises
and regularly pays maintenance charges to the Co-operative Housing
Society. The photographs filed on record show the plaintiff’s articles,
furniture, fixtures, television, and cooking appliances. Defendant No. 3
is the Builder and Developer who constructed the building in which the
suit premises is situated under a housing scheme of the State of
Maharashtra to accommodate forest dwellers.
4. However, the Manager of Defendant No. 3 attempted to remove
the furniture and other belongings of the plaintiff on 01.02.2019 and
further lodged a complaint at Sakinaka Police Station, thereby
extending threats regarding possession of the suit premises. If the relief
of temporary injunction is not granted, irreparable loss would be caused
to the plaintiff. On the contrary, if the injunction is granted, no
prejudice would be caused to the defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff
prays for grant of temporary injunction.
5. Defendant No. 3 has resisted the Notice of Motion by filing an
Affidavit in Reply. It is contended that, the plaintiff does not have any
document of title in her favour. The flats were handed over to eligible
slum dwellers/encroachers under the guidance of Defendant No. 2 and
-- 2 of 6 --
NM 1350 of 2019 in
L.C.SU 726 of 2019 3 Date : 16.03.2026
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. In 2018, various complaints were
raised before the Grievance Redressal Forum, Sanjay Gandhi National
Park, regarding unauthorized and illegal occupancy of flats, including
the suit premises. Defendant No. 3 further contends that directions were
issued to take necessary action to vacate such flats and hand them over
to Sanjay Gandhi National Park.
6. It is stated that, Sanjay Gandhi National Park has not issued any
allotment letter in favour of the plaintiff, who is an illegal occupant. The
plaintiff is claiming rights over the suit premises on the basis of bogus
and forged documents. The alleged sale agreement is merely notarized
and neither registered nor stamped. The plaintiff has not impleaded
Shri Pandurang Babu Pawar as a party to the suit. She is only seeking
the relief of injunction without seeking a declaration. Defendant No. 3
submits that the plaintiff has no prima facie case for grant of temporary
injunction and prays for rejection of the Notice of Motion.
7. The points for arise for determination and my findings thereon
are as under -
SR.NO ISSUES FINDINGS
1. Whether the Plaintiff has established a prima
facie case for grant of temporary injunction?
In the
negative.
2. Whether the balance of convenience lies in
favour of the Plaintiff?
In the
negative.
3. Whether irreparable injury would be caused
to the Plaintiff if injunction is refused?
In the
negative.
4. What order ? As per Final
Order
-- 3 of 6 --
NM 1350 of 2019 in
L.C.SU 726 of 2019 4 Date : 16.03.2026
R E S O N S
AS TO POINT NO.1 TO 4
8. The plaintiff approached the court by filing present Notice of
Motion under Order 39 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. She
sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendants, their agents,
or any person claiming through them, from dispossessing her or
obstructing her possession of the suit premises. The defendants,
however, had already initiated steps to vacate the premises, alleging
that the persons including the present plaintiff were unauthorizedly and
illegally occupied. They had made the necessary correspondence and
even sought assistance from the police machinery to enforce the action.
During the hearing, learned counsel for the plaintiff drew the Court’s
attention to a sale agreement filed on record. He submitted that the
agreement had been executed by the original allottee, Mr. Pawar, for a
consideration of 10,00,000. Though unregistered, the document was	₹
notarized and supported by a power of attorney and an affidavit-cum-
declaration executed by Mr. Pawar. According to counsel, these
documents indicated that Mr. Pawar had vested his interest in the suit
premises in the plaintiff’s name.
9. The plaintiff further relied on maintenance receipts for the years
2016, 2017, and 2018, issued by
Shri Jyotiling Prasanna SRA
Grihnirmal Sanstha, the proposed society. The learned Counsel argued
that these receipts demonstrate her possession of the plaintiff over the
suit premises. To substantiate the allotment in Mr. Pawar’s name, he
also referred to the allotment order filed on record. Defendant No. 3,
however, categorically denied the rights and title of both Mr. Pawar and
the plaintiff. It is submitted that the plaintiff and others had illegally
occupied the flats and were relying on forged documents.
-- 4 of 6 --
NM 1350 of 2019 in
L.C.SU 726 of 2019 5 Date : 16.03.2026
10. It is to be noted that the maintenance receipts merely evidenced
payment of charges and could not constitute proof of title. Defendant
No. 3 had denied any allotment of the suit premises to Mr. Pawar.
While the learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the allotment
bore the signature of the concerned authority and could be proved at
trial. No doubt the said document is matter of trial but the sale
agreement is unregistered and no permission for transfer had been
filed. The premises allotted under the Slum Rehabilitation Authority
(SRA) scheme are transferable only under strict conditions. Transfers
require official approval and are subject to a lock-in period of ten years.
Any transfer before this period is illegal. Even after the lock-in period,
transfer is permissible only with prior approval of the SRA and subject
to eligibility criteria. No such documents had been filed by the plaintiff.
11. The plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case for
injunction. The defendant has followed due process of law hence, in
case of grant of order of injunction the defendant will suffer irreparable
loss. The balance of convenience lay in favour of the defendants, who
would suffer irreparable loss if restrained. Accordingly, points 1 to 3 are
answered in the negative, and the motion deserves to be rejected.
Hence in answer to point no.4 I pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion no. 1350 of 2019 stands rejected.
2. Notice of Motion No. 1350 of 2019 is disposed off with no
order as to costs.
Date : 16.03.2026
Place : Mumbai.
(PRAKASH A. SABLE),
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Greater Mumbai.
-- 5 of 6 --
NM 1350 of 2019 in
L.C.SU 726 of 2019 6 Date : 16.03.2026
"CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER"
DATE : 20.03.2026 AT 02.00 PM. Ms. Varsha V. Sawant
STENOGRAPHER GRADE-I
UPLOAD DATE NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
(uploaded by Steno Samruddhi S. Jadhav)
Name of the Judge (with Court No.) : SHRI PRAKASH A. SABLE
C.R.NO.08.
Date of pronouncement of
judgment/order
: 16.03.2026
Judgment/order signed by the P.O. on : 20.03.2026
Judgment/order uploaded on : 20.03.2026
-- 6 of 6 --