Chhedanagar Gymkhana and Recreation Centre - Suit St. No.9599 of 2019VsMCGM

Date: 16-09-2019
Business: Adv. B.S. Bhosale with Adv. S.K. Bhosale for plaintiff present and tendered original NM No. 3421/19 along with affidavit in support and also tendered original Ch/S No. 1651/19 along with affidavit in support.
Adv. Mr. S.C. Khandagale for Deft/MCGM present.
K.B./L.O. at 03.40 p.m.
Heard Adv. for plaintiff.
ORDER ON AD-INTERIM RELIEF
Perused plaint, documents annexed to the plaint, Notice of Motion, reply filed by defendant / MCGM and heard both sides. The plaintiff is seeking temporary injunction restraining defendant MCGM from taking any coercive action against alleged unauthorized work carried out by plaintiff as mentioned in the notice dated 26.08.2019 purported to be under Section 354A of MMC Act. The description of the work given in the notice is, Unauthorized erection of M.S. Channel frame approx. admeasuring (31m X 35m. X 11m. Height) and P.C. P.C. work without obtaining permission from Building Proposal Department. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff has pointed out that it was mandatory for defendant / MCGM to take photographs with camera having facility of date and time but no such photographs are taken, panchanama prepared by defendant / MCGM. He has also pointed out that in Minutes of Order dated 20.12.1978 in Notice of Motion no. 1343 of 1978 in Suit No. 1562 of 1978, the plaintiff is permitted to carry out repairs, construct roads, drainage and other public amenities to duly repair and maintain the same portions. Ld. Advocate for the plaintiff has further stated that the plaintiff has not made any unauthorized work as described in Section 337 or 342 of MMC Act, the so called alleged unauthorized construction is merely to protect children from falling and to avoid harm to senior citizens due to activities of sports being carried out at the suit site. Ld. Advocate for the defendant has argued that the plaintiff has not obtained any permission for construction, the defendant / MCGM has followed due process of law and therefore, plaintiff has not entitled for ad-interim relief.
        After going through entire record, it will have to be ascertained whether the alleged unauthorized construction required permission for defendant / MCGM as it was coming within purview of definition of building as given in Section 3(s) of MMC Act. This will require evidence from both sides. The plaintiff has brought triable question before the Court. Balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff and it will suffer irreparable loss if temporary injunction is not granted. Hence ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) is granted till next date.
Adjd to 16.12.2019 for N/M reply
Next Purpose: NM REPLYREJOINDER
Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2019

Date: 16-12-2019
Business: Adv.  S. K. Bhosle  for plaintiff present and tendered affidavit of service and original writ of summons.
Adv. Mr. S.C. Khandagale for Deft/MCGM present and tendered reply to N/M cum WS. t.o.r. and marked at Exh.  3 and list of documents (Exh. 4).He has also  tendered draft NM along with affidavit. Leave is granted to register the NM. Copies served to other side.
Copies served to other side.
Order on C/S No. 1651/19 -
       Perused C/S and reply. The plaintiff wants  to add subsequent events by this C/S. This does not change nature of the suit. Hence, C/S allowed and made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). the plaint be amended and Copy be served to other side on or before next date.
Earlier order, if any, to continue till next date.
Adjd to  06-01-2020 for compliance ,N/M hearing.
Nature Of Disposal: ALLOWED
Disposal Date: 16-12-2019

Filing Number: 109960/2019
Filing Date: 13-09-2019
First Hearing Date: 16th September 2019
Decision Date: 16th December 2019
Court Number And Judge: 8-COURT 08 ADDL SESSIONS JUDGE