TrustJury record updated 21 Sept 2026
Not available
Date: 22-07-2019
Business: (Incharge Court of C.R. No.8)
Adv. P.D. Gandhy for Plaintiff present.
Adv. Mukesh Chedda for Defendant No.1 present.
Adv. Khandagle for Defendant No. 2 to 4 /MCGM present.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd. to 05/08/2019 for N/m reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 05-08-2019
Date: 05-08-2019
Business: Adv. Hardik Desai for plaintiff present and tendered original Contempt NM No. 2540/19 with affidavit. TOR.
Mr. Abhay Rane, employee of def. no. 1 present. His advocate is absent.
None for defendant/MCGM.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd to 18.09.2019 for NM reply.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2019
Date: 18-09-2019
Reason For Adjournment: court time is over
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 23-09-2019
Date: 23-09-2019
Business: Adv. Giriraj for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mansi for deft. no. 1
Adv. Mr. S.C. Khandagale for Deft 2 to 4/MCGM present.
KB LO
Adv. Deepa Pohuja along with Adv. Mansi Hora i/b J Law Associates for deft. no. 1 is present and tendered register NM No. 3526/19 along with affidavit. Other side has no objection to accept WS. In view thereof NM is granted and made absolute in terms of prayer clause A. Hence, NM No. 3526/19 is disposed of accordingly.
WS taken on record (Exh. 4)
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Heard both sides in contempt NM No. 2540/19.
Adjd to 30-09-2019 for NM Order on Contempt NM No 2540/19.
Next Purpose: NM ORDERS
Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2019
Date: 30-09-2019
Business: Adv. Aditya Khare for plaintiff present.
Adv. Mrs. R.M. Hazare h/f Adv. Mr. S.C. Khandagale for Deft no.2 to 4/MCGM present.
Adv. Ms. Mansi for deft. no. 1 is present.
KB
LO
Order on NM No. 2540/19 -
This is an application by NM under order XXXIX rule 2-A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for alleged disobedience of this Court\''s order dated 24-09-2018 whereby the defendants were restrained from dispossessing the plaintiffs from a plot of land ad- measuring around 5142 sq.ft. being part of CTS No. 165 (Part) in survey no. 14 Hissa No. 8. According to the plaintiffs, in defiance of the said order the defendant no. 1/contemnor has made encroachment on the suit plot on 26-06-2019 and in support of the allegation they have relied upon the photographs of the suit plot. According to Ld. Adv. for the plaintiffs, the said photographs clearly show existence of 2 rooms on the suit plot which are encroached by defendant no. 1. on all these counts the plaintiff have prayed to detain the contemnor in Civil Prison and to appoint Court receiver in respect of Suit Plot. In reply to the Said NM, the defendant no. 1 has come up with the case that the alleged photographs are in respect of land having survey no. 14 Hissa no. 1 corresponding to CTS No. 165 and 165 (1-4). it is further contended by defendant that the said structures are in possession of Surjeet Singh Sehra since 1974 and he is running garage therein. It is case of the deft. no. 1 that the said Hissa no. 1 of Survey no. 14 is purchased by him and there is no substance in the allegation that he made encroachment on the suit plot.
After going through rival contentions of the parties, it can be seen that there is dispute about one plot of land which is claimed by the plaintiff to be Hissa no. 8 and claimed by the defendant no. 1 to be Hissa No. 1 of survey no. 14. The photographs produced by the plaintiff do not clarify whether the structures seen in the said photographs are located on Hissa no. 8. Moreover, the said photographs are not proved by adducing evidence of the photographer or by following procedure for proving the documents under Indian Evidence Act. When the description of the plot of land is under challenge then it is difficult to conclude about the alleged encroachment at this initial stage of the proceeding. Ld. Adv for plaintiff has argued that the defendant no. 1, a big developer, will create fictitious record if he will be allowed to continue the breach of injunction order. Ld. Adv. for the defendant no. 1 submits that by making the instant prayers the plaintiffs want back door entry in the suit plot. As discussed hereinearlier there is no clarity about the description of the suit property /Plot to give finding about the alleged encroachment by defendant no. 1. It is not just and convenient to appoint Court receiver for the allegations made in the NM. Therefore, the NM is dismissed.
Earlier order in NM No. 4625/18, if any, to continue till next date.
Nature Of Disposal: DISMISSED
Disposal Date: 30-09-2019Filing Number: 107478/2019 Filing Date: 09-07-2019 First Hearing Date: 22nd July 2019 Decision Date: 30th September 2019 Court Number And Judge: 8-COURT 08 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE
Order Details: Notice of Motion Pdf Text: Dt.30.09.2019 SU 235/19 CORAM : H.H.J SHRI.C. V. MARATHE (C.R.NO.8) Adv. Aditya Khare for plaintiff present. Adv. Mrs. R.M. Hazare h/f Adv. Mr. S.C. Khandagale for Deft no.2 to 4/MCGM present. Adv. Ms. Mansi for deft. no. 1 is present. KB LO Order on NM No. 2540/19 : This is an application by NM under order XXXIX rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for alleged disobedience of this Court's order…
TrustJury presents public court-record information for legal discovery and reference. Record availability and detail can vary by source and case.