Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: 1 DRAFT NM IN SU.216519
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT BOMBAY
DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION
IN
SUIT NO.2165 OF 2019
Shri Ramchandra Birbal Yadav ]....Plaintiff.
Versus
Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Anr. ]... Defendants
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI A.N. MARE
(C.R. No.11)
DATE : 1st August, 2019.
Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate for plaintiff.
Ms. Mhatre, Advocate for Defendants.
O R D E R
1. By this draft Notice of Motion the plaintiff has sought adinterim
injunction to restrain the defendants or anybody through them from
demolishing the suit premises in pursuance to the impugned notice and
otherwise than in due course of law.
2. The Advocate for plaintiff submitted that the suit premises is
structure No.3 shown in Exh.A to the plaint. He submitted that the
defendants have served a notice on the plaintiff claiming that the suit
premises needs to be removed as the defendants have to repair a bridge.
He submitted that it the defendants do require the place to repair the
bridge, the plaintiff may shift the suit premises temporarily however,
with a condition that defendant Corporation shall complete the repairs
within stipulated time and will allow the plaintiff to reerect the suit
premises. He submitted that it is not the case of defendants that the suit
premises is illegal or unauthorized. He relied upon the photographs at
Exh.G and other documents.
-- 1 of 4 --
2 DRAFT NM IN SU.216519
3. On the other hand Advocate for defendants submitted that the
defendants have already demolished the suit premises and other
adjoining structures in pursuance to the impugned notice. She relied
upon various documents filed with list Exh. 2 and the photographs
dated 16.7.2019 revealing demolition of the various structures.
4. Here while considering the relief sought by the plaintiff, the
nature of the structure is not in question. The existence of the structure
as on the date of the suit is, however, material.
5. Though the plaintiff has filed photographs on record those do not
bear any date on which said photographs were taken. On the contrary,
the photographs produced by the defendants bear digital date
16.7.2019 and reveal that various structures are demolished. If the
photographs more particularly photograph No.2, filed by defendants, is
compared with sketch at Exh.A, it prima facie reveals that the suit
premises is demolished on 16.7.2019.
6. Thus, prima facie, it is clear that the suit premises is demolished
on 16.7.2019. In such circumstances, no adinterim relief as sought by
the plaintiff can be granted as the relief sought is rendered infructuous
since the impugned Notice is already acted upon. Consequently, I pass
following order:
ORDER
1. Adinterim relief in terms of prayer Clause (a) of the draft Notice
of Motion is refused.
2. Leave is granted to register the draft Notice of Motion. It is made
returnable on 5.09.2019.
Sd/
(A.N. MARE)
Judge,
01/08/2019 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
Dictated On : 01.08.2019
Transcribed on : 02.08.2019
HHJ Signed on : 03.08.2019
-- 2 of 4 --
3 DRAFT NM IN SU.216519
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF
THE ORIGINAL SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
Upload Date Upload Time Name of Stenographer
09/07/19 11.30 a.m. V.U. Pawar (H.G.)
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
HHJ SHRI A.N. MARE
(CR 11)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGEMENT /ORDER
06/07/19
JUDGEMENT /ORDER signed by
P.O. on
09.07.2019
JUDGEMENT /ORDER uploaded
on
09.07.2019
-- 3 of 4 --
4 DRAFT NM IN SU.216519
-- 4 of 4 --