Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 NM 2819-19 in Suit No. 2147-19
CNR NO.MHCC0100772919
IN THE COURT OF CITY CIVIL FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2819 OF 2019
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 2147 OF 2019
Akramal Najibul Sarkar …...Plaintiff
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai ..... Defendants
Coram : Sanjay N. Yadav, Judge
(Court Room no. 05)
Date : 11th November, 2019.
Appearance:
Ld. Adv. Mr. B. P. Shukla for the plaintiff.
Ld. Adv. Mrs. Rawade for defendant/MCGM.
ORDER
1. The plaintiff by this notice of motion seeks temporary injunction
restraining the defendant corporation from demolishing the suit
premises, i.e. 9th floor above attic floor of the building.
2. Heard Learned Advocate for the plaintiff and Learned Advocate
for the defendant corporation.
3. It is contended by the plaintiff had filed L.C. Suit No. 1316/2018
wherein the adinterim relief is granted to the plaintiff. The officers of
the defendant corporation suddenly came to the suit premises on
22.07.2019 and had threatened the plaintiff to demolish the suit
-- 1 of 3 --
2 NM 2819-19 in Suit No. 2147-19
premises.
4. It is contended that the notice was issued to the plaintiff under
Section 354A of the MMC Act on 28.04.2018 for unauthorised work of
7th floor. The notice was served. The plaintiff was directed to produce
all the authorization of the notice structure. The plaintiff replied the
notice and the speaking order was passed on 07.05.2018. The suit
premises was demolished on 21.03.2018. It is contended that the
plaintiff taking advantage of the adinterim relief had carried out the
work of 7th and 8th floor. It is contended that the plaintiff had carried
out new construction. It is contended that the inspite of stop work
notice the plaintiff had carried out the construction. The plaintiff had
filed the affidavitinrejoinder denying the contentions raised in the
reply to the notice of motion.
5. At the out set, it needs to be mentioned that the plaintiff had
instituted the L.C. Suit No. 1316/2018 regarding to the same suit
premises. The plaintiff had sought to raise the contentions raised in the
L.C. Suit No. 1316/2018. The plaintiff cannot file fresh suit and fresh
relief. So also, it is contended that the notice structure was already
demolished by the defendant corporation by taking help of Pydhonie
Police Station. The plaintiff again had reconstructed the suit premises.
The plaintiff had failed to show the authorization of the structure. The
plaintiff had not disclosed all the facts in the plaint. The plaintiff had
not come in the Court with clean hands.
The plaintiff has failed to make out the primafacie case in his
favour. The balance of convenience does not lies in favour of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff would not be put to irreparable loss, if the
temporary injunction is refused.
-- 2 of 3 --
3 NM 2819-19 in Suit No. 2147-19
In the result, following order is passed.
ORDER
The Notice of Motion No. 2819/2019 is dismissed.
(Sanjay N. Yadav)
Judge,
Date : 11.11.2019 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated on : 11.11.2019
Transcribed on : 13.11.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 19.11.2019
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 19.11.2019 at 5.37 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. K.S.Bhosale
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room no.)
HHJ Shri. Sanjay N. Yadav
C.R. no. 05
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
11.11.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by
P.O. on
19.11.2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
19.11.2019
-- 3 of 3 --