Skip to main content
Court Order

Order 1

CNR MHCC01006661201830 May 2018
City Civil Court, Mumbai
Mumbai · Maharashtra (MH)
Back to Case

Full Order Text

Order 1 · 30 May 2018 · CNR MHCC010066612018

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: Back
Daily Status
IN THE COURT OF :COURT 11 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
Case No. :NOTICE OF MOTION/0102025/2018
Sunita Ganesh Dake - Suit Stamp No.7151 of 2018 Vs MCGM
Date : 30-05-2018
Business : By Preciepe Adv. Mr. Kudalkar for plaintiff present. Adv.
Ms. Tondwalkar for BMC/Deft.present. Mr. Sanket
Pednekar, Jr. Engineer, S Ward present. Vakalatnama filed
by the Plaintiff. TOR. Adv.for the Defendant has given
undertaking that she will file Vakalatnama on next date.
Adv.for the Defendant filed list of documents as Exh. 3.
Draft N/m along with affidavit in support taken out by the
Plaintiff for restraining the Defendant temporarily from
demolishing the suit premises in pursuance to the notice dt
25.04.2018 without following due process of law. T.O.R.
Leave granted to register. Heard. Perused documents. It
appears that on 14.06.2017 in the writ petition no. 737/16
directions were given that prior to demolition give
appropriate opportunity of being heard to all affected
persons and said order on passed on 14.06.2017. Thereafter
08.07.2017 notice seems to be issued to the owners /
occupier. The Plaintiff is claiming tenant in the notice
structure. It appears that before The Hon&amp#039ble
High Court on 25.07.2017 Asst. Commissioner filed
affidavit and it discloses that the occupants residing refused
to accept the notice and the same were pasted on the wall of
the structures. That means prima facie notice was served to
the occupiers / tenants i.e. present plaintiff. Further it
appears that the tenants failed to reply the notice and on
28.02.2018 speaking order has been passed. Prima facie the
Defendant has filed on record report of service of order
alongwith affidavit in support of documents at page no. 41.
Thus, there is due service of notice and order. It is argued
by Ld adv for the Plaintiff that suit structure is situated
within notified slum and further for slum area structures,
datum line, is of the year 1995. According to him, he is
ready to produce all the documents showing his case in
respect of slum before MMC within two days. He has urged
that in view of principle of natural justice opportunity be
given to the Plaintiff. Besides it is argued by Ld adv for the
Defendant that basically there is no reply to the suit notice
by the Defendant and further even to consider the suit
structure as a slum there is no census certificate produced
by the Plaintiff before this court. It seems from the order
passed by the Hon&amp#039ble High Court on
14.06.2017 that opportunity of being heard was to be given
to all affected persons. No doubt thereafter service of notice
-- 1 of 2 --
was done but the Plaintiff failed to reply it. But in view of
principle of natural justice and in view of submissions
before me it is just in the interest of the justice to give one
more last opportunity to the Plaintiff prior to demolition.
Therefore it is directed to the Plaintiff to place all
documents and reply before concerned authority on or
before 01.06.2018 without fail and further the Defendant is
directed to consider the same, if produced and pass a fresh
speaking order, in pursuance to the suit notice dated
08.07.2017. With above directions draft N/m is hereby
disposed of and it be registered for statistical purpose.
Nature of Disposal : DISMISSED
Disposal Date : 30-05-2018
COURT 11 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
-- 2 of 2 --

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