Shamim Akbar Shaikh +1 moreVsMCGM +1 more

Date: 30-06-2018
Business: Resumed.
Adv. Gohil for plaintiff and Adv. Rawade for MCGM are present.
Adv. Gohil tendered registered NM No. 2408 of 2018 with affidavit.
Adv. Rawade filed affidavit in reply. O - R and R.
Exh. 1 - Plaint
Exh. 2 - Vakalatnama. O- Seen and filed.
Exh. 3 - Address Memo. O- R and R.
Exh. 4 - List of documents. O - Seen and filed.
Exh. 5 - Affidavit in support of plaint.
    Heard, Adv. Gohil for the plaintiff according to him the plaintiffs occupy the premises no. 15, 16 and 17 for years together and having various documents like electricity bills, ration cards, Aadhar cards, identity card issued by election commission, driving license etc. issued at the address of suit premises.  Certain documents also shows that the plaintiffs file application for consideration of their eligibility as the resident of slum area.  However, the plaintiffs have not produced any photo pass issued by the concern authority in their name to the effect that the suit premises are located in slum area.
  Adv. Gohil further submits that the defendant  is not following due process of law and wants to evict the plaintiffs in hurried manner.  According to him a reasonable time should be granted.
  On the other hand Adv. Rawade for MCGM submits that the work of construction of Hancock bridge is in progress.  There are 82 hutments out of which 51 are found eligible and were alloted P.A.P. she further submits that the plaintiffs are not found eligible.  In reply Adv. Gohil further submits that a sufficient time should be given to the plaintiffs.

    Considering the rival submissions and the copies of documents placed on record it prima facie appears that the plaintiffs predecessor was member of Indira nagar residence welfare association.  At some period he applied for permission to repair his premises etc.
Thus, the plaintiffs have prima facie shown that they are holding their premises for long time and are having general documents showing their residential address at Indira nagar area.  However, the plaintiffs have not placed any documents to show prima facie the legality of construction of their respective premises and the legal capacity in which they are holding the same.
   It appears that earlier on 14.01.2015 notices U/s 314 of MMC Act were issued to the plaintiffs and thereafter on 15.06.2018 a notice was issued to vacate the premises within two days.  Thereafter, two weeks time has lapsed.  The plaintiffs have not claimed any other independent right in the suit premises.  Therefore, ad-interim relief cannot be granted.  Thus the following order is passed -
ORDER
1.   Ad-interim relief is rejected.
2. As there was earlier protection granted to the plaintiffs, the same is extended till 09.07.2018. so as to facilitates the plaintiff to approach the Hon\''ble High Court.
  An ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by sheristedar of this court be supplied to both the parties.

Adjd for reply to 07.08.2018.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2018

Date: 07-08-2018
Business: Resumed.
The P.O. is on leave.
Adjd for directions to 23.08.2018
Next Purpose: DIRECTIONS
Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2018

Date: 23-08-2018
Business: Resumed.
Adv. Pereira for plaintiff and Adv. Rawade for MCGM are present.
Adv. Pereira submits that the A.O. Before the Hon\''ble High Court is adjourned to 24.09.2018.
Adjd for reply to NM to 06.10.2018.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 06-10-2018

Date: 06-10-2018
Business: Resumed.
Adv. Pereira for plaintiff and Adv. Rawade for MCGM are present.
Adv. Pereira seeks time to file affidavit in rejoinder.  Time is granted as last chance.
Adjd for NM rejoinder to 29.01.2019.
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2019

Date: 29-01-2019
Business: Resumed.
None for plaintiff.
Adv. Ravade for MCGM submits that the A.O. filed by the plaintiff against order of rejection of ad-interim relief is dismissed by the Hon\''ble High Court.  Plaintiff is directed to file writ of summons duly served on the defendants.
Adjd for NM arguments to 21.03.2019.
Next Purpose: NM  ARGUMENTS
Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2019

Date: 21-03-2019
Business: It seems that by in-advertance a holiday on 21.03.2019.
Next Purpose: NM  ARGUMENTS
Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2019

Date: 23-04-2019
Business: As Court is busy in dictating judgment in SU No.1753/2010 and also NM and Ch/s. Orders, hence, board discharged.
Matter adjd to 04.07.2019 for NM Argument.
Next Purpose: NM  ARGUMENTS
Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2019

Date: 04-07-2019
Business: Plaintiff and his Adv.absent.
Adv.Smt. Rawade for defendant/MCGM present.
Matter adjd to 03.08.2019 for NM Argument/Order against Plaintiff.
Next Purpose: NM  ARGUMENTS
Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2019

Date: 03-08-2019
Business: Plaintiff and his Adv.absent.
Adv.Meena Dhuri for defendant/MCGM present.
Plaintiff and his Adv. absent. Steps not taken to prosecute the notice of motion. Notice of Motion 2408/2018 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Nature Of Disposal: DISMISSED
Disposal Date: 03-08-2019

Filing Number: 108554/2018
Filing Date: 29-06-2018
First Hearing Date: 30th June 2018
Decision Date: 03rd August 2019
Court Number And Judge: 5-COURT 05  ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE