Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: MHCC010082592019
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3019 OF 2019
IN
L. C. SUIT NO. 2185 OF 2019
Suyog Telematics Limited … PLAINTIFF
Versus
The Assistant Municipal Commissioner and others … DEFENDANTS
APPEARANCES :
Mr. Ansari Kalim, Advocate for the Plaintiff.
Mrs. Vidya Vyavhare, Advocate for Defendant Nos.1 and 2/MCGM.
CORAM : AMIT ANANT LAULKAR,
JUDGE
COURT ROOM NO.04
DATED : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2025
ORDER
01. Being threatened with action of demolition of suit
structure, plaintiff invoked jurisdiction of this Court and preferred
instant suit for declaration and injunction wherein present Notice of
Motion is moved claiming interim reliefs.
02. Perused Motion, affidavit in support and documents
tendered on record. I have also pore over oral reply submitted by the
defendant.
-- 1 of 4 --
(2)
03. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ansari Kalim for the plaintiff.
He pinpointed flaws in the action posed by the defendant and also
pressed upon
bonafides of the plaintiffs finally craving for ad-interim
relief in their favour.
04. Learned Advocate Mrs. Vidya Vyavhare, for defendant/
MCGM urged that till date no speaking order is passed and thus no
action can be challenged before this Forum. The application is devoid of
merit. Finally, she craves for rejection of the application in
limine.
05. Apparently, the plaintiff has challenged action of alleged
demolition of suit premises proposed by the defendant. Admittedly till
date no as such speaking order is passed by the defendants. In the
midst of hearing, Authorized officer of MCGM i.e. Mrs. Rachna Langi,
JE, M-East Ward, who is present before the Court submitted across the
bar that they are ready to consider the reply cum documents filed by the
plaintiff, if any, and then to pass speaking order. His aforesaid statement
is accepted on record. Even learned advocate for the defendant acceded
to the same. When confronted, learned advocate for the plaintiff
consented for filing fresh reply along with the documents before the
MCGM. If that being factual scenario, if the chance of filing reply along
with the documents is conferred upon the plaintiff for having due
deliberation by defendant/MCGM then it will not prejudice on either
side. On one or other way, it will follow the rule of
Audi-Alteram-
Partem, which is prerequisite in the cases of removal of encroachment.
Thus, the statement made by the authorized officer is accepted and on
that count, the Notice of Motion deserves disposal. In the event, if
opportunity is given to the plaintiff to put-forth his specific reply cum
documents afresh for consideration before the MCGM in pursuance of
-- 2 of 4 --
Order (3) Notice of Motion No.3019/2019
In L.C. Suit No.2185/2019
their stance in the suit, in alienation with rules of natural justice, it shall
suffice the purpose. With these submissions, I believe there remains
nothing to ponder over further.
06. This being the position, I am of the opinion that no
prejudice would cause to the defendant if they are called to consider
fresh reply cum documents and then to pass detail final speaking order
strictly in abidance with the law. This would also afford a fair chance of
hearing to the plaintiff as well. Even this will ensure on the part of
defendant that they would follow the provision as contemplated under
the MMC Act. Thus, the plaintiff herein is directed to submit his fresh
reply along with documents, if any, within 15 days from the date of this
order. The defendant is called upon to consider the plaintiffs said reply
and documents, if any and to pass Speaking Order as per law. In the
meantime, they are restrained to proceed against the suit structure. This
staying Order would continue to operate for further period of 10 days
from the date of the said Order, if it is adverse to the plaintiff. Both
parties to take note and comply forthwith.
07. With preceding directions, I perceive there remains nothing
more for consideration in instant motion. Both parties to follow the
mandate stated hereinbefore.
Ergo, the Notice of Motion is finally
disposed of in above terms.
(Amit Anant Laulkar)
Judge,
Date : 10.09.2025 City Civil Court, Mumbai.
-- 3 of 4 --
(4)
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED ORDER.”
11.09.2025 3.20 p.m. Shilpa P. Pawar
Stenographer - Grade IUPLOAD DATE TIME
Name of the Judge (With Court
Room No.)
H. H. Judge Shri. Amit A. Laulkar
Court Room No. 4.
Date of Pronouncement of ORDER 10.09.2025
ORDER signed by P. O. on 11.09.2025
ORDER uploaded on 11.09.2025
-- 4 of 4 --