Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 1637/19 in Suit No. 4548/12. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1637 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010044372019)
IN
L. C. SUIT NO. 4548 OF 2012
(CNR NO. MHCC010154012012)
Shri. Ajay Harikrishna Vishwakarma ...Plaintiff
Versus
The Commissioner, The Bombay Municipal
Corporation, Greater Mumbai & another ...Defendants
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.11).
DATE : 14th JANUARY, 2020.
Mr. Mahadeo Choudhari, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mrs. Chavan, Advocate for Defendant / MCGM.
ORDER
This is a motion taken out by plaintiff namely Ajay
Vishwakarma for temporary injunction, more specifically the order of
statusquo.
2. According to plaintiff, he is possessing 10 x 20 sq.ft.
situated at C.T.S.No.8, Survey No.1 at Village Paspoli, Saki Vihar Road,
Powai.
3. Ld. advocate Mahadeo Choudhari for plaintiff submits that
-- 1 of 4 --
N/m No. 1637/19 in Suit No. 4548/12. 2 Order.
the notice under Section 314 of MMC Act dated 15/10/2012 is
challenged by plaintiff. As per interim order granted by this Court
dated 18/10/2012, the structure of plaintiff was protected. However,
the adinterim order came to be vacated by this Court on 04/01/2019.
Plaintiff has preferred A.F.O.No. 768/2019, which was scheduled for
hearing on 24/01/2019, however the MCGM has demolished the
structure on 23/01/2019. It is requested to peruse map annexed on
Page No.74 and 101 wherein it is shown that impugned structure is
neither on public road nor on water pipeline. Plaintiff entitle for
benefits of rehabilitation, therefore it is prayed for order of statusquo.
4. Ld. advocate Chavan for MCGM submits that not only
structure of plaintiff but adjacent 3 structures came to be demolished.
The impugned structure is on public road. It is requested to peruse
detail order of this Court dated 04/01/2019 and order of the Hon'ble
High Court dated 24/01/2019. According to MCGM, plaintiff has
erected the structure upon demolition and he intend to obtain benefits
by preferring present motion before this Court when no relief was
granted by the Hon'ble High Court. It is requested to reject the motion.
5. According to plaintiff, his shop of cycle repairing is neither
on public road nor on pipeline. It appear plaintiff intend to obtain
benefits of P.A.P. (Project Affected Person). It is mentioned on behalf of
plaintiff that he purchased the premises from Ansari Gafoor under
affidavit dated 22/04/1994 for Rs.4,000/. There is an application in
Hindi submitted by plaintiff addressed to Ward Officer dated
08/05/2000 wherein he prayed for leniency to run a shop of cycle
repairing. However, it is material to note that there is no reference of
impugned affidavitcumSale Deed dated 22/04/1994, in said
-- 2 of 4 --
N/m No. 1637/19 in Suit No. 4548/12. 3 Order.
application.
6. If possession of plaintiff is not on public road, then it was
essential to execute document of sale from the original landlord.
Plaintiff do not have information about his Predecessor Ansari Gafoor
from whom he purchased the property. On perusal of record, the
property appear to be on public road, but plaintiff has no information
about possession of plaintiff or document executed by Ansari Gafoor in
favour of plaintiff on 22/04/1994. This Court has proceeded for detail
order on 04/01/2019. The Hon'ble High Court observed in Para No.4
and 5 that appellant/plaintiff has taken two contrary stands. It is also
observed that there is no single document came to be produced to prove
possession of the plaintiff over suit premises. In short, there is
substance in the submission of the MCGM that despite demolition
plaintiff is intending to erect the shop. In short, there is no prima facie
case in favour of plaintiff.
7. Plaintiff is failed to produce present status of the suit
premises. No photograph of suit premises has been produced by
plaintiff to show what is today's status of the suit premises. No blanket
order of statusquo can be granted.
8. On perusal of roznama, suit is posted for issues. The suit is
8 years old. It can be fixed for daytoday hearing and can be decided
within 4 weeks. The parties, if they are interested to proceed with
matter, submit draft issues and schedule of hearing. Hence the order :
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 1637/2019 stands dismissed.
2. Both side to submit draft issues and schedule of the hearing
-- 3 of 4 --
N/m No. 1637/19 in Suit No. 4548/12. 4 Order.
to expedite hearing.
3. N/m No. 1637/19 is disposed off accordingly.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 14/01/2020. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 14/01/2020.
2. Transcribed on : 15/01/2020.
3. Signed on : 15/01/2020.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
16/01/2020. 12.19 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri G.G.Bhansali.
(Court Room No.11).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 14/01/2020.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 15/01/2020.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 16/01/2020.
-- 4 of 4 --