Viren MiraniVsMCGM

Date: 21-06-2019
Business: BY PRECIPEE
Plaintiff present.
Adv.Mr.Bhadang for plaintiff present.
Adv.Mr.Pradip Patil for defendant/MCGM present.
Mr.Navneet Jadhav, Sub Engineer, \''D\'' Ward.
Exh.1-Plaint
Exh.2-Vakalatnama. O-Seen and filed.
Exh.3-Address Memo. O-R and R.
Exh.4-List of documents. O-Seen and filed.
Exh.5-Affidavit in support of plaint.
Adv.of Plaintiff filed draft notice of motion a/w. Affidavit t.o.r.
O-Leave granted to register draft notice of motion.
Heard Ld.Adv.for the Plaintiff. Adv.for Deft.Corporation.
ORDER
           The LH construction described in scheduled of the notice dated 15.05.2019 was directed by the corporation to be stopped and Plaintiff was directed to produce the permission.
           The Plaintiff replied the notice by reply dated 20.05.2019 contending that the nature of work is not permanent and no permission is required. It was further contended that if permissions are required, his say be treated as an application for the requisite permission.
          Considering the nature of the construction under taken as mentioned in the scheduled of the notice it cannot be said that it is not of permanent nature. So also it is without the permission. In circumstances it cannot be said that the construction was not unauthorised.
         It is submitted by the Ld.Adv.for plaintiff that construction work is stopped. It is further submitted by the Ld. Adv. that he be permitted to submit the proposal for regularisation before the authorities of the corporation. It is submitted that till the proposal for regularisation is decided  by the corporation the Plaintiff be protected. The Plaintiff on his own can also approach the corporation for regularisation if he so desires.
         The Plaintiff has no prima facie case to seek ad-interim injunction. The balance of convenience does not lie in favour of Plaintiff. Plaintiff would not be put irreparable loss if the ad-interim injunction is refused.
            In facts and circumstances of the case, the Plaintiff is not entitled for the ad-interim injunction restraining the defendant from acting upon the order dated 19.06.2019.
              The prayer of Ad-interim relief is refused.
      Ld.Adv.of Plaintiff and defendant requested for authenticated copy.
        Sheristedar is directed to give authenticated copy to both the sides.
Matter adjd to 08.07.2019 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: REPLY
Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2019

Date: 08-07-2019
Business: P.O. Is on Training Programme at Uttan. Hence, Board discharged, matter adjd to 19/08/2019 for Reply.
Next Purpose: REPLY
Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2019

Date: 19-08-2019
Business: Matter adjd to 30.08.2019 for Reply.
Next Purpose: REPLY
Next Hearing Date: 30-08-2019

Date: 30-08-2019
Business: Plaintiff present.
Adv. Kaidokht Vasania h/f Wadia Gandhi and Co. for plaintiff present and tendered registered NM no. 2393/19
Exh. 6 Withdrawal application filed by Adv. for plaintiff . Order - The plaintiff present.
He seeks to withdraw the suit for the reason in application. Suit allowed to be withdrawn without liberty to file a fresh. The suit stands  disposed of as withdrawn . The Notice of Motion, if any , pending also stands disposed off.
Nature Of Disposal: WITHDRAWL
Disposal Date: 30-08-2019

NOTICE OF MOTION/102373/2019

Filing Number: 106737/2019
Filing Date: 21-06-2019
First Hearing Date: 21st June 2019
Decision Date: 30th August 2019
Court Number And Judge: 5-COURT 05  ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE