Interim Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 Suit No.1743/2018
...Order on NM No.2495/2018
MHCC010080642018
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT MUMBAI.
NOTICE of MOTION NO. 2495 of 2018
IN
SUIT NO. 1743 of 2018
Amrutlal Premji Patel & other 2 ....Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Anr. ….Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE SHRI C. S. DATIR
(C.R. NO.04).
DATE : 22.06.2026
Appearance:
Advocate Nilesh Jadhav holding for Bipin Joshi for plaintiffs.
Advocate Ms. Rupali Patil for defendant/MCGM.
ORDER
1. Plaintiffs have taken out this Notice of Motion, requesting
to grant injunction against the defendants from acting upon the notice
dated 03rd April 2018 issued under section 53(1) of MRTP Act and order
passed pursuant thereto dated 07/06/2018 in respect of unauthorized
structure mentioned in Exhibit-A.
2. According to plaintiffs, they are in lawful possession of
their respective flats bearing No. 201, 202, 503 & 504 situate Mhada
Colony, Ghatkopar, Mumbai. Defendants are taking action of demolition
-- 1 of 5 --
2 Suit No.1743/2018
...Order on NM No.2495/2018
of the alleged offended structure under the pretext of notice under
section 53(1) of the MRTP Act. It has been alleged by the defendant
that, four flats inter alia alleging additions, alterations and
amalgamation of flats, enclosure of bed , merging of passage area and
bathroom etc. Defendants have issued 3 notices to the flat occupants.
3. In fact, the said flats were farming part of sale component
of Slum Rehabilitation scheme. (SRA for short). There is quarrel
amongst the member of the society and the reason thereof,
administrative has been appointed by the register of the co-operative
department. Plaintiffs have not carried out alleged alterations or
amalgamation in the structure. To avoid complications, they have
submitted an application for regularization of the alleged unauthorized
work. The proposal was put up dated 25th July 2015. Defendants have
instituted criminal prosecution under section 53(7) of the MRTP Act
against 10 members of the society and not against the plaintiffs. In spite
of regularization proposal, defendants passed speaking order on
07/06/2018, directing to the plaintiffs to remove the alleged
unauthorized work.
4. They have further contended that, in fact, they have not
committed any unauthorized construction as alleged. The notices issued
by the defendants are not legal. It is the pressurized tactics of the
defendants for illegal demands. If alleged structure is removed, there
would be grave loss to the plaintiffs. The notice is nullity, therefore, the
impugned notice be stayed and not act upon till final judgment of the
suit.
-- 2 of 5 --
3 Suit No.1743/2018
...Order on NM No.2495/2018
5. Defendants have not filed reply, hence no reply order has
been passed.
6. Heard Argument both side.
7. It is the main contentions of plaintiffs that, they have not
amalgamated or altered their flats as alleged in the notice by covering
the beds, bathroom, balconies etc. The notice issued by the corporation
is illegal. To avoid complications, they made proposals for
regularization.
8. I am of view that, though, the corporation has not filed
reply but one thing cannot be ignored that, as per the impugned notice,
plaintiffs are not admitting that, they have amalgamated or altered the
structure in question. If it is so, then why the plaintiffs have put up
proposal for regularization of the structure. Once the plaintiffs have
made proposal of regularization of the structure before the competent
authority, it does mean that, they have made illegal alteration or
amalgamation of the structure.
9. Moreover, what is the status of regularization proposal as
on today has been not brought on record by the plaintiffs. By the way,
the regularization proposal is independent proceedings between the
competent Authority. They may deal the same on its merit either to
allow or dismissed. Court has nothing to do with the said proposal.
Plaintiffs may take appropriate steps in respect of the regularization
-- 3 of 5 --
4 Suit No.1743/2018
...Order on NM No.2495/2018
proposal, but, this court cannot passed injunction order against the
corporation for implementing the notice under section 53(1) of the
MRTP Act. Thus, I pass following order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No. 2495 of 2018 is hereby
dismissed and finally disposed off.
(C. S. DATIR)
Judge,
Date: 22/06/2026 City Civil Court,Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 22/06/2026
Typed on : 22/06/2026
Checked on : 22/06/2026
Signed on : 22/06/2026
-- 4 of 5 --
5 Suit No.1743/2018
...Order on NM No.2495/2018
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
22/06/2026 4.14 p.m Ms.P.S.Kamble (Board-clerk)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri C. S. DATIR
(Court Room No.04).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 22/06/2026
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 22/06/2026
Judgment/Order uploaded on 22/06/2026
-- 5 of 5 --