Order 3

Order Details: Order below exhibit
Pdf Text: - 1 -
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT, AT MUMBAI
ORDER BELOW EXH. NO. 8
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 1714 OF 2018
Pravin Kunj and Sharad Villa Association .. Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai .. Defendants.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI K.P.NANDEDKAR
(C.R.NO.11)
DATE : 28th September, 2018
Mr. Upadhyay, ld. adv. for plaintiff.
Ms. Tondvalkar, ld. adv. for defendant/BMC.
O R D E R
1. This application is filed by plaintiff for extension of earlier
order for a period of 4 weeks. As mentioned in the application plaintiff
has filed above mentioned suit against defendant/BMC for challenging
alleged notice issued by defendant. Initially this Court has granted
interim relief and it was continued till today. However this Court has
dismissed N/m No. 2631/18 today and plaintiff has no other alternative
for his residence. Plaintiff is intending to challenge this Order before
the Hon'ble High Court. Hence plaintiff has prayed to allow the
application.
2. Defendant's adv. Ms. Hajare resisted application by filing
say contending that N/m is dismissed on merits hence no question of
continuation of earlier order arise. It is further contended that suit
building is in highly dangerous condition hence this application is liable
to be dismissed as it is not maintainable under provisions of law.
-- 1 of 3 --
- 2 -
3. Heard. As mentioned in the application today this Court
has disposed of N/m No. 2691/18 and said order is appealable order.
Further plaintiff is intending to file appeal against order passed by this
Court in the N/m. It is further contended that ad interim relief granted
in N/m was existing till today. Hence plaintiff has prayed to stay the
order passed by this Court in N/m No. 2691/18 for a period of 4 weeks.
4. Order 41 Rule 5(2) of CPC provides that where an
application is made for stay of execution of appealable decree before
expiration of time allowed for appealing therefrom, the Court which
passed the decree may on sufficient cause being shown order the
execution to be stayed.
5. This Court has disposed of N/m No. 2691/18 and vacated
interim relief granted to the plaintiff. This Court has heard the parties
on merits and decided N/m on merits after hearing parties at length.
The order passed by this Court even though is appealable it is not
executable order because no relief is granted by the Court in favour of
any of the parties and this Court has come to conclusion while deciding
N/m that plaintiff is not entitled to relief of injunction as prayed for.
Thus the order passed by this Court is not executable one. Hence no
question arises of staying it. Hence application deserves to be rejected.
Hence the order.
O R D E R
Application Exh. 8 stands rejected.
(K.P.Nandedkar)
Judge,
City Civil Court,
28/09/2018 Gr.Bombay
-- 2 of 3 --
- 3 -
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGEMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
28.09.2018 04.15PM Y.S. Patil (H.G.)
Name of the Judge HHJ Shri K.P.Nandedkar (CR No.11)
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order. 28/09/2018
Judgment/order signed by P.O on 4/10/2018
Judgment/order uploaded on 4/10/2018
-- 3 of 3 --