Mohd. Kais s/o. Mohd. Sayeed khanVsMunicipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai

Date: 16-04-2022
Business: NOB-TOB  (BY PRACEIPE)
Adv V.T. for plaintiff present and tendered draft Notice of Motion along-with affidavit in support thereof. TOR. Leave is granted to register the draft Notice of Motion, returnable on next date.
None for defendant / MCGM (N-ward)
ORDER ON DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION
The advocate for plaintiff filed on record the service report. The report shows that notice was served to the defendant / MCGM on 13.04.2022. The advocate for plaintiff shown urgency in matter, but neither officer of the defendant / MCGM nor advocate is present. Therefore, considering the nature of allegation, both parties are directed to maintain status-quo in respect of factual position of suit property till 19/04/2022.
Authenticated copy of the Roznama be given to the plaintiff.
Adjd. To 19/04/2022 for ad-interim hearing.
Next Purpose: HEARING
Next Hearing Date: 19-04-2022

Date: 19-04-2022
Business: None for plaintiff.
Adv Mrs Rawade for defendant / MCGM is present.
K.B.
L.O. at 4.15 p.m.
Adv V.T. Dubey for plaintiff present and tendered original registered Notice of Motion No.1432/2022 along-with affidavit in support thereof. TOR .
Adv Mrs Rawade for defendant / MCGM is present and tendered affidavit of document. TOR and marked as Exh.2. Copy is supplied to advocate for plaintiff.
Adv for plaintiff tendered list of compilation of documents. TOR and marked as Exh.3. Copy is supplied to advocate for plaintiff.
Heard both sided on ad-interim reliefs.
Adjd. To 20/04/2022 for order on ad-interim reliefs.
Next Purpose: AD-INTERIM ORDER
Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2022

Date: 20-04-2022
Business: Adv N.K. Dubey h/f Adv V.T. Dubey for plaintiff present.
Adv Mrs Tondwalkar h/f Adv Rawade for defendant / MCGM is present.
ORDER ON AD-INTERIM ON NOTION OF MOTION NO.1432/2022
Perused NM, affidavit in support thereof, documents filed by both the parties. Heard both advocates at length.
	The plaintiff by way of this NM prayed that defendant / MCGM be restrained from demolishing the suit property in pursuance to the notice dated 15.03.2022 and speaking order dated 28.03.2022.
	On hearing both the advocates and on perusal of record it reveals that, the contention of the plaintiff that the suit property is very old and is in existence prior to 1962. The plaintiff has filed on record the copy of patch hold card. Therein it is nowhere mentioned that it is a ground plus first floor structure, on the other hand it is a temporary structure. The defendant / MCGM specifically alleges against the plaintiff that there is vertical extension to the existing structure. Accordingly to the defendant / MCGM ground floor structure is not disputed but first floor structure is a targeted structure which is a unauthorized vertical extension.
	The contention of the plaintiff that notice issued u/sec.351 of MMC Act dated 15.03.2022 is not properly served to the plaintiff therefore, due process of law had not been followed. The defendant / MCGM filed on record copy of notice and speaking order, both these documents sufficiently shows that notice and speaking order properly served to the plaintiff. So, it is not the case that plaintiff has not get a chance to reply the notice and submit the documents to prove the authorization of the notice structure.
             The plaintiff has not filed on record any document to show that targeted first floor structure was constructed with due sanction and permission of the competent authority. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for relief as prayed. Considering this I pass the following order
ORDER
1. Prayer clause (a) of Notice of Motion No.1432/2022  is rejected.
2. Defendant is directed to file reply to NM till next date
Authenticated copy of the Roznama be given to both the parties.
Adv for plaintiff filed application for stay the above order  as plaintiff wants to challenge the said order before Hon\''ble High Court. Said application is TOR and marked as Exh.4.
Adv for defendant / MCGM strongly objected for the same.
ORDER ON EXH.4
                  At this stage, the Ld Adv for plaintiff submitted that four week\''s time may be granted to challenge this order, therefore prayed for grant of stay of four weeks.
            The advocate for defendant / MCGM has taken strong objection to grant stay.
               Heard both advocates at length.
               Today I have refused the ad-interim reliefs prayed by the plaintiff on hearing both sides and on merits. If stay is granted  to above order, its nothing but granting ad-interim reliefs in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the application (Exh.4) for stay of order filed by advocate for plaintiff stands rejected. Application (Exh.4) is disposed off accordingly.
Adjd. To 23/06/2022 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2022

Date: 23-06-2022
Business: None for plaintiff.
Adv. Mrs. Rawade for defendant/ MCGM is present.
Adjd. to 16/07/2022 for dismissal of Suit.
Next Purpose: DISMISSAL
Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2022

Date: 16-07-2022
Business: None for plaintiff.
None for defendant/ MCGM, N-ward.
Following order is passed below Exh. 1-
O R D E R
1.     In view of order dated 28/04/2022 passed by Hon\''ble Bombay High Court in Appeal from order No. 443/2022 along with Interim Application No. 2844/2022, L.C. Suit No. 947/2022 is disposed of.
2.    In view of disposal of Suit, N/M No. 1432/2022 stand disposed of.
Nature Of Disposal: OTHER
Disposal Date: 16-07-2022

NOTICE OF MOTION/101432/2022

Filing Number: 104226/2022
Filing Date: 11-04-2022
First Hearing Date: 16th April 2022
Decision Date: 16th July 2022
Court Number And Judge: 4-COURT 04 AD-HOC JUDGE