Skip to main content
Court Order

Final Order 1

CNR MHCC01006473201827 Feb 2020
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Final Order 1 · 27 Feb 2020 · CNR MHCC010064732018

Order Details: Chamber summons
Pdf Text: Ch/s No. 868/18 in Suit No. 42/2017. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 868 OF 2018
(CNR NO. MHCC01-006473-2018)
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 42 OF 2017
(CNR NO. MHCC01-000054-2017)
Mr. Yusuf Mohd. Naim Khan ...Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai ...Defendant
And
Pratibha Manohar Parab ...Applicant
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.11).
DATE : 27th FEBRUARY, 2020.
Mr. V.T.Dubey, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Mrs. Mhatre, Advocate for Defendants / MCGM.
Ms. Sayli Aapte, Advocate for Applicant.
ORDER
This is a chamber summons submitted by applicant
Pratibha Parab, owner of C.T.S.No. 51.
2. Heard ld. Advocate Sayli Aapte for applicant.
3. Ld. Advocate V.T.Dubey for plaintiff submits that none can
compel the plaintiff to litigate against unwanted defendants.
-- 1 of 3 --
Ch/s No. 868/18 in Suit No. 42/2017. 2 Order.
REASONS
4. Admittedly, genesis of the suit is notice dated 27/12/2016.
The question for consideration is, whether presence of applicant is
necessary to decide propriety of impugned notice dated 27/12/2016.
5. According to applicant, she is owner of C.T.S.No. 51 and
during development of suit premises, for about 8 to 10 feet plaintiff has
encroached upon open space of C.T.S.No. 51. In support of said
allegation, applicant has tendered various complaints to different
authorities dated 28/11/2016 and 07/03/2017. The suit property is
situated on C.T.S.No. 95. The rights are accrued to plaintiff from owner
Mr. Prabhakar in view of Conveyance Deed dated 20/08/2015.
Applicant is failed to satisfy the Court whether C.T.S.No. 95 and 51 are
closely connected; is there any measurement to show that possession of
plaintiff has created any encroachment on C.T.S.No. 95 etc. If there is
specific encroachment on C.T.S.No. 51, applicant is at liberty to knock
the doors of the Court for appropriate relief. Considering all facts in
total, I do not find necessity of applicant as proper party to decide
legality of the notice dated 27/12/2016. Hence the order :
- ORDER -
1. Chamber Summons No. 868/2018 stands dismissed.
2. Ch/s. No. 868/18 is disposed off accordingly.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 27/02/2020. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 27/02/2020.
2. Transcribed on : 29/02/2020.
3. Signed on : 29/02/2020.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
-- 2 of 3 --
Ch/s No. 868/18 in Suit No. 42/2017. 3 Order.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
29/02/2020. 5.50 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 27/02/2020.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 29/02/2020.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 29/02/2020.
-- 3 of 3 --

TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.