Final Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 29.07.2024
Sr. No. 65
CORAM: H.H.J. SHRI. A.G. SANTANI (C.R. NO.11)
SU 2661/10
Ch/s. 1401/22
NM 503/19
NM 2239/22
NM 1452/19
NM 1589/24
Adv. Mr. Gaikwad for the plaintiffs is present. He is heard on
maintainability of Contempt NM No. 1452/2019.
Adv. Mr. Arvind Rathod a/w Adv. Mr. Shinde for defendant/MCGM
is present. Adv. Mr. Sandeep Dhangar for applicant in Ch/s. is
present. The matter is kept back for NM Orders.
Later on 5.03 p.m.
Barring appearance for the defendants/MCGM, rest of the parties
are absent.
F.R.S.R. Following Order is passed in NM 1589/2024.
-: O R D E R :-
(i). Notice of Motion No. 1589/2024 is made absolute in
terms of prayer Clause (a), (b) and (c) only, subject to
payment of costs of Rs.3,000/-(Rs. Three thousand),in
favour of the D.L.S.A., Mumbai, positively till the next date.
(ii). On payment of the costs, the plaintiffs are directed to
proceed with the suit, by filing their Ch/s. reply, without
further delay.
(iii). The parties to expedite the matter.
(iv). Notice of Motion No. 1589/2024 is, accordingly, disposed of.
The following Order is passed on Contempt NM No. 1452/2019
after hearing both the parties:
-: O R D E R :-
01. By this Contempt NM, the plaintiffs contended that when
NM No.503/2019 was part heard, on 28.02.2019, defendant Nos. 2
and 3, in complete disregard to sanctity and dignity of this Court,
arrived at the suit structure and unlawfully demolished the same,
despite being aware that the said NM was partly heard. As such, the
said demolition was illegal and it was sheer abuse of process of law.
Rather, such Order of demolition and actual demolition took place
on very day. Therefore, it is the fit case of invoking provision of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Here, it is to be noted that the suit is
about 14 yeas old and it is, thus, clear that in view of the reliefs on
merits, this Contempt NM can not be ‘tried together’ with the suit in
-- 1 of 2 --
view of the ratio laid in the matter of Rampyaribai Sukhdeo Daga V.
Niladevo Narayandas Jakhotiya, 2007 (4) Mh.L.J. 213. Certainly, it
would require conduction of the inquiry, framing of issues, wherein
the parties may also choose for leading their evidence in support of
their rival contentions. However, it would not be appropriate to try
and decide this Contempt NM along-with this suit, simply because
it would hamper its very progress. Therefore, without recording my
finding on its merits, the Contempt NM No. 1452/2019 is disposed
of as ‘not triable’, along-with this suit. The plaintiffs are still placed
at liberty to file separate Miscellaneous Judicial Case about the said
Contempt, if they so desire.
Adjourned for costs/compliance/Ch/s. reply/NM reply/NM hearing
to 22.08.2024.
Judge
-- 2 of 2 --