Interim Order 2

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: N/m No. 4119/19 in Suit No. 2722/19. 1 Order.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 4119 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010113012019)
IN
LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 2722 OF 2019
(CNR NO. MHCC010105582019)
Parabdin Jawahar Kalwar ...Plaintiff
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Defendants
CORAM : SHRI G.G.BHANSALI.
(C.R.NO.11).
DATE : 16th DECEMBER, 2019.
Mr. V.C.Rele, Advocate for Plaintiff.
Ms. Chavan, Advocate for Defendant / MCGM.
ORDER
Heard ld. advocate Rele for plaintiff, urged to issue
temporary injunction against defendant MCGM to initiate any action in
view of road widening notice of L.B.S.Road, issued by the MCGM dated
01/10/2019.
2. Perused reply submitted by MCGM.
3. Ld. advocate Rele for plaintiff submits that there is no
sanction plan submitted by MCGM and exact area of both structures i.e.
structure no. 264 and 265 is shown by MCGM. According to plaintiff,
he runs a hotel named and styled as "Jai Hind Hotel". He possessed the
structure as a one unit, admeasuring 400 sq.ft. However in Annexure
II, in respect of structure affected in L.B.S.Road, structure no.264 is
-- 1 of 4 --
N/m No. 4119/19 in Suit No. 2722/19. 2 Order.
shown eligible for the benefit, however structure no.265 is shown as
noneligible. It is claimed to issue adinterim injunction to restrain
defendant.
4. Ld. advocate Chavan for MCGM submits that there is a
document dated 26/07/2011 and reply received to plaintiff on
05/08/2012 which has shown the line affecting and various structure
and its percentage which get affected in road widening scheme. There
is no such case of plaintiff in respect of two structures owned by
plaintiff, but he is using as one unit. Plaintiff has submitted similar
documents for another structure. There is no assessment bill in the
name of plaintiff. The assessment of impugned hotel is standing in the
name of third person. It is claimed to dismiss the notice of motion.
REASONS FOR ORDER
5. Ld. advocate for plaintiff relied on decree in L.C.Suit No.
1232/1991. However the copy of Exh.1 in Suit No. 1232/1991 is not
filed by the plaintiff. Perused two notices sent by advocate Rele to
defendant MCGM dated 14/03/2018 and 28/10/2018 wherein it is not
mentioned that structure no.264 is different from structure no.265.
6. On perusal of speaking order dated 25/11/2019, all
documents submitted by plaintiff has been duly considered whereby
structure no.264 is made eligible and at the same time structure no.265
is made noneligible.
7. On last date, there was partial arguments on behalf of ld.
advocate for plaintiff. It was intimated to the plaintiff to produce copy
of Exh.1 in L.C.Suit No. 1232/1991. It is a suit filed by father of
plaintiff, wherein decree of injunction has been granted in favour of
-- 2 of 4 --
N/m No. 4119/19 in Suit No. 2722/19. 3 Order.
plaintiff. However, plaintiff is failed to produce the same. It appear
from the record that as per policy of the MCGM, independent structure
is entitled for various benefits, therefore, plaintiff seems to have
prepared two structures of one unit for obtaining the benefit and get it
demarcated as structure no.264 and structure no.265. On perusal of
entire documents produced on record, there is no such case that there
were two structures.
8. As mentioned in speaking order, all documents produced
by plaintiff are relating to structure no.264 whereon, plaintiff runs a
hotel, named and styled as "Jai Hind Hotel". Therefore there is no case
with plaintiff to entitle for adinterim injunction.
9. According to MCGM, there is work of road widening
initiated. The public project cannot be stayed, it may lead for
irreparable loss to public at large. Therefore at this juncture, it is
observed that it will cause irreparable loss to the defendant, if ad
interim injunction is granted. Hence the order :
ORDER
1. Application to the extent of adinterim injunction stands
rejected.
2. Defendant to submit written statement at the earliest to
expedite hearing.
(G.G.BHANSALI)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 16/12/2019. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 16/12/2019.
2. Transcribed on : 17/12/2019.
-- 3 of 4 --
N/m No. 4119/19 in Suit No. 2722/19. 4 Order.
3. Signed on : 18/12/2019.
4. Delivered to Certified :
Copy Section on
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
18/12/2019. 12.55 p.m. Miss M.A.Kulkarni
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri G.G.Bhansali.
(Court Room No.11).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 16/12/2019.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 18/12/2019.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 18/12/2019.
-- 4 of 4 --