Final Order 1

Order Details: Notice of Motion
Pdf Text: L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 1 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY.
CONTEMPT NOTICE OF MOTION NO.4102 OF 2019
(CNR No.MHCC01-011235-2019)
IN
L.C. SUIT NO. 2908 OF 2016
(CNR No.MHCC01-013228-2016)
Mr.Billaluddin Hirakhan Chouhan
Age:45 years, Occ: Business
R/o: Azad Nagar, Ajaj Compound,
Dargah Cross Road, Bhandup (W),
Mumbai- 400 078. ...Plaintiff.
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ...Applicant/
Ori.Defds.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI G.B.GURAO.
(C.R.NO.11).
DATE : 09/02/2021.
Mrs. Smita Tondvalkar Advocate for Defendants / MCGM.
Mr. Suraj Kudalkar, Advocate for Applicant/Plaintiff.
ORDER
1. Applicant/ defendant Municipal Corporation has taken out this
contempt notice of motion and sought following reliefs,
(a) that the property both moveable and immovable of the
plaintiffs be attached.
(b) that the contemnors be punished/detained in civil
prison for a term not exceeding 3 months for committing
and not obeying the status-quo order dated 21/12/2016
passed by this Hon’ble Court for carrying out the
-- 1 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 2 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
unauthorized contraction in violation of the above status-
quo order.
(c) the cost of the notice of motion be provided for
(d) for such further and other reliefs as the nature and
circumstances as the case may be granted.
2. Facts in brief are as under;
Plaintiff has come with this suit for declaration that the notice
dated 15/12/2016 under section 354A of MMC Act and the speaking
order passed on notice dated 24/11/2017 are illegal null and void.
Plaintiff also sought relief of injunction restraining the defendant its
officers or any persons on behalf of defendant from demolishing the suit
premises. According to plaintiff, plaintiff is in occupation and possession
of suit premises situated in Azad Nagar, Ajij compound, Azad Nagar,
Dargah Cross road, Bhandup (W), Mumbai-78. The defendant/
Corporation has given the notice to the plaintiff under section 354A of
the MMC Act as aforesaid in respect of the structure situated at Munshi
compound, Soap Factory. The property i.e. Ajij compound and Munshi
compound are different and there is road between both these
properties. The suit premises is situated in survey No. 165 of Village
Bhandup, Kurla, Mulund, Mumbai 82. The land wherein the suit
structure is situated is declared as Slum under section 4(1) of
Maharashtra Slum Areas(Improvement, Clearance And Redevelopment)
Act, 1971. The suit premises is bounded as under;
Toward East Agra Road
Toward West Boundary of Internal road
Toward North Boundary of Bhandup Village
Towards South Vacant line, Tank.
-- 2 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 3 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
3. Plaintiff contended that one Mr. Rajaram Y. Hankare was the
owner and in possession of suit property i.e. admeasuring area of suit
property is 440 sq. mtrs equivalent to 4675 sq. feets. On 23/7/1973 Mr.
Rajaram Ohol assigned his right in the suit property in favour of
Rajaram Hankare and Sopan Hankare for due consideration and handed
over possession to them. In the meantime, Mr. Rajaram and Sopan
Hankare have erected factory building on the land and they were
carrying their business under the name of M/s Suyog Leather works
since 1973. Thereafter, on 4/7/2013 Mr Rajaram Hankare and Sopan
Hankare assigned and transferred their right title and interest in the suit
property to the plaintiff and co-purchasers Mr. Arif Jahangir Munshi and
Mr. Saghi Ahemed Jameer Ahemed Khan. Mr. Rajaram and Sopan
Hankare were running their business since 1973 and the
defendant/Corporation had issued Gumasta licenses to them. The land
was being used for industry purpose and therefore, the tax was inflected
on the land under the provisions of Maharashtra Land Revenue Court
1966. The Deputy Collector Encroachment, Kurla(II) had granted
permission to erstwhile owner Mr Rajaram Hankare and Sopan Hankare
on their application dated 15/9/1989 for getting ancillary power from
Municipal Corporation. The land is assessed by the defendant. The
Defendant is also accepting water bills in respect of suit premises. The
suit premises is assessed by defendant. Maharashtra State Electricity
Board has given electricity connection in the suit premises. Thus, the
plaintiff has not made any addition and alteration in the suit premises.
4. The Assistant Commissioner ‘S’ Ward issued notice dated
15/12/2016 under section 354A of MMC Act and alleged that the suit
premises with unauthorized construction of rooms on open plot with
B.M. Wall, M.C. Angle and A.C. Sheet is going on. The said notice was
-- 3 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 4 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
issued under the influence of local persons, who are interested in the
property. After receipt of the notice plaintiff had given reply. Plaintiff
had produced the documents with the Assistant Commissioner ‘S’ Ward.
However, without considering the documents produced by the plaintiff
Designated officer passed order dated 24/11/2017 and directed the
plaintiff to remove the structure. Plaintiff has challenged the said
notice and speaking order on various grounds as enumerated in the
plaint.
5. By this suit plaintiff had moved Court with a prayer to grant ad-
interim relief that defendant or its officers be temporary restrained from
demolishing the suit premises. Upon hearing both the sides and
considering the documents on record My Ld. Predecessor has by order
dated 21/12/2016 directed both the parties to maintain status-quo. My
Ld. Predecessor has specifically directed that plaintiff shall not carry out
any construction on suit site and defendant shall not execute notice till
next date. The said status-quo order was passed in view of the
observation that at the time of filing of the suit speaking order was not
passed. Thereafter, ad-interim order was extended time to time by this
Court.
6. The defendant has filed affidavit of Sachin Khodade in reply to
the notice of motion. The defendant denied each and every allegations
made by the plaintiff. The defendant denied that structure was in
existence prior to issuance of notice. Defendant denied that the officers
did not find any ongoing construction in the land. According to the
defendant, in routine inspection, the officer of the defendant namely
Pravin Muluk (J/E ‘B & F’) inspected suit property on 15/12/2016 and
he found that the construction work on open plot admeasuring 25 mtr X
-- 4 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 5 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
10.4 mtr X 3 mtr. height was in progress. The officers Pravin Muluk has
asked the occupier/owner about the permission of the construction and
also the documents. However, no such permission of the defendant/
Corporation for construction was produced by the owner/occupier and
thus, the notice under section 354A was issued. In the mean time,
plaintiff had approached this Court. Plaintiff has filed this suit as well
as suit no. 1009/16 and this Court has granted status-quo order as
aforesaid. Plaintiff had given reply to the notice. The Designated
officer considered the reply and documents produced by the plaintiff.
However, the documents could not proved the authenticity of structure
and therefore, Designated officer passed speaking order dated
24/11/2017.
7. Defendant further contended that the plaintiff is habitual
unauthorized constructor. Plaintiff has no documents in respect of suit
structure.
8. During the pendency of the suit Mr. Noor Khan Pathan claiming
to be owner of the suit land approached before Hon’ble High Court by
way of Writ Petition (L) no. 3589/2020 and requested the Hon’ble High
Court to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ or direction directing
the respondent no.2 to consider the complaints given by petitioners and
take necessary steps to get possession of his property bearing CTS No.
88/1D, village Bhandup, Tal- Kurla where the illegal construction has
been done. The Hon’ble High Court directed this Court to decide the
notices of motion in both the suits. My Ld. Predecessor after hearing
both the parties and third party Mr. Noor Khan dismissed both the
Notices of Motion by order dated 29/12/2020. My Ld. Predecessor also
made absolute the Chamber Summons of applicant Noor Khan Pathan
-- 5 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 6 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
directing the plaintiff to add him as a defendant in the suit.
9. Before this defendant corporation has taken out present contempt
Notice of Motion. The defendant filed affidavit of Ratnakar Sasane
(J/E) (B & F) and stated that the defendant/ Corporation received
complaint dated 13/7/2019 in respect of unauthorized construction in
the suit premises. Officers Shri Lokhande (J/E) (B & F), visited the site
on 29/7/2019 and 30/7/2019 and he noticed unauthorized
construction of first floor on ground floor structure without permission
of defendant. The said construction was in progress. The officers took
photographs of the ongoing construction and prepared inspection
report. As the construction was in respect of the earlier notice
structure, notice dated 15/12/2016 and this Court has granted order of
status-quo. Hence, fresh notice was not issued.
10. According to the defendants, notice dated 15/12/2016 was in
respect of ongoing construction of ground floor. However, on
29/7/2009 & 30/7/2009 the officers found construction as above
ground floor. Thus, plaintiff has committed contempt. Plaintiff has
breached status-quo order granted by this Court. Hence, prayed to
made absolute the contempt notice of motion in terms of prayer clause
(a) & (b).
11. Plaintiff has filed affidavit in reply to the notice of motion.
Plaintiff pleaded that the Gala or rooms were already in existence.
Before issuance of notice under section 354A dated 15/12/2016
plaintiff had filed the application for permission to repair the structure.
However, officer of the defendant did not decide the application. The
plaintiff has sold the rooms in the suit property in the year, 2015 and
-- 6 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 7 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
onward and respective purchasers are residing with their families in the
premises. Plaintiff flatly denied that he made construction in the suit
property after order of status-quo dated 21/12/2016. plaintiff denied
that he disobeyed the order of this Court. Hence, among these grounds
plaintiff prayed to dismiss the notice of motion.
12. To substantiate its claims defendant/ Corporation examined its
officers Pawan Kulkarni, S.E. (B & F) ‘S’ Ward as AW-1 at Exh.13.
Defendant also filed the documents at Exh.15 to 20, whereas in defence
plaintiff examined himself as RW-1 at Exh.23. During the evidence
undisputed documents are exhibited. I have heard Mrs. Smita
Tondwalkar, Advocate for defendant and Mr. Suraj Kudalkar, Advocate
for respondent/ contemnor/ plaintiff.
13. From the rival contention of both the parties following points
arise for my consideration to which, I record my finding against them
for the reasons given follows.
Sr.
No.
POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether plaintiff has disobeyed
the order of status-quo dated
21/12/2016 and committed
contempt of Court ?
In the
affirmative
2. What order ? As per final.
order.
R E A S O N S
14. Mrs. Smita Tondwalkar Advocate for applicant/defendant/
-- 7 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 8 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
Corporation has submitted that suit structure is situated in Munshi
compound, Juta Factory, Bhandup. She has invited my attention
towards the plaint. According to her, the area by name Munshi
compound is also known as Ajij compound. Plaintiff has no concern in
the land wherein suit structure is standing. Mr. Noor Khan Pathan, who
is later on added as a defendant in the suit is a co-owner alongwith
others of survey no. 88. She has submitted that the plaintiff was found
carrying the construction on the open land and therefore, the notice
dated 15/12/2016 was given to the plaintiff. Before passing of the
speaking order plaintiff has approached this Court and this Court has
directed that both the parties shall maintain status-quo. Further, this
Court has also directed the plaintiff shall not to carry any construction
work on the suit site. According to her, plaintiff has also filed another
suit no.1009/2016. This Court heard both the parties and dismissed the
notices of motion in both the suits.
15. According to her, on 13/7/2019 defendant had received
complaint about ongoing construction in the suit premises. Defendant
officers visited the suit premises on 29/7/2019 and 30/7/2019 and
noticed that construction of first floor was in progress. However, the
earlier cause is pending in this Court and the status-quo order was
enforced, therefore at that time fresh notice was not issued. She has
invited my attention towards the notice dated 15/12/2016. According
to her, the area where the construction of rooms was in progress was
admeasuring 25 mtr. X 10.4 mtr. X 3 mtr. (height). The notice was in
respect of entire structure. Accordingly, in due course of time speaking
order was passed and plaintiff had directed to remove the structure. She
further submitted that structure was completed by plaintiff and also
ongoing construction of first floor on room no.2 was in progress.
-- 8 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 9 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
Therefore, plaintiff has made contempt of status-quo order passed by
this Court.
16. As against this, Mr. Suraj Kudalkar Advocate for plaintiff has
invited my attention towards documents on record. According to him,
the suit property is already assessed by defendant. Suit property is
situated in Survey no. 88-A. Electricity Board has given electricity
connection to the plaintiff. Plaintiff and other co-purchasers have
purchased suit property from Shri. Rajaram and Sopan Hankare for due
consideration and in their agreement, schedule of property is described
as land alongwith structure standing thereon. Thus, plaintiff has not
made any construction. Plaintiff had applied for the permission for
repairs of the suit property. However, the officers of the defendant did
not give permission to the plaintiff for nine months. Plaintiff has
executed separate agreements in favour of various persons and now
they are in possession of their respective rooms. He has invited my
attention towards the inspection report, panchanama dated 29/7/2019
and 30/7/2019 and 13/12/2019 respectively. According to him, when
the officers visited the premises he found that ongoing construction of
first floor of room no.2 was in progress. However, in earlier it has
mentioned that one unknown person was found carrying construction.
In the inspection reports it has mentioned that the construction work of
first floor of room no.2 was in progress at Munshi compound. In
panchanama Exh. 20 it has specifically mentioned that on inquiry by
officers the son of Ishitiyak Choudhary told the officers that the
construction was ongoing through contractor Riyaz Javed Khan and the
construction was on room no.2. The officer has specifically noted that
Ishitiyak Choudhary has committed the contempt of order of the Court.
Thus, his submission is that plaintiff was not found in making the
-- 9 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 10 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
construction as alleged by the defendant.
17. Mr. Kudalkar Advocate for plaintiff has further submitted that the
defendant/ Corporation is not in position to trace out the location of
property. According to him, Ajij compound and Munshi compound are
two different properties and there is road in between them. The
property of the plaintiff is situated in Ajij compound and he has no
concern with structure in Munshi compound. Structure in Ajij
compound is Chawl type and that too in existence since long and
particularly when the plaintiff and others have purchased the property.
He further submitted that oral evidence of defendant's witness Pawan
Kulkarni do show that plaintiff was not found in carrying construction
in the suit property. Thus, plaintiff has not committed any breach of
the order of the Court. Plaintiff has always obeyed the order of the
Court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the contempt notice of motion.
18. It is to be noted that as per order 39 rule 2-A when any person
disobeys the order of injunction granted or other order made under
rule-1 or rule-2 or breach of any of the terms of which injunction was
granted, then the Court may attach his property and may also order
such person to be detained in the Civil prison for a term not exceeding
three months. It is settled law by the catena of Judgments of Hon’ble
Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court that such disobedience or
breach by party must be willful. Therefore, to decide this contempt
notice of motion, it is necessary to consider that the plaintiff has
willfully disobeyed the order of the Court and thereby committed the
breach of injunction granted in the suit.
19. Mr. Pawan Kulkarni, S.E. (B.&F.) ‘S’ ward Exh.13 has deposed in
-- 10 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 11 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
conformity of the contention in the notice of motion. His evidence is
that of replica of affidavit in support of notice of motion. He deposed
that plaintiff was found carrying construction in the suit premises
inspite of status-quo order of the Court and therefore, he is liable for
consequence for breach of the order. In his cross examination, he has
stated that in the inspection report at Exh.13 it has mentioned that
ownership of the land is vested with MCGM. However, he does not
know that the land is in Survey no. 165 and the same is declared as a
slum. He admits that suit property is situated at Ajij compound, Dargah
Road, Bhandup, but he further submitted that the land where the suit
premises is situated is also known as Munshi compound, Jutawala
compound. He admitted that plaintiff in his notice reply dated
17/12/2016 has stated that the suit property is situated at Azad Nagar,
Ajij compound, Dargah Road, Bhandup. He admitted plaintiff has given
the application to defendant for permission to carry repairs of the suit
premises on 1/4/2016. He admits that plaintiff had given measurement
of the suit premises. He further deposed that he could not filed any
evidence to show that land in Munshi compound and Ajij compound is
same. Specific question was asked to him that Ishitiyak Choudhary is
the owner of room no.2 and he was found carrying unauthorized
construction. However, he has stated that his son told the same and
therefore, the same is mentioned in the panchanama. He further
deposed that inspection report dated 30/7/2019 and 13/12/2019 are of
different structures but in the same premises. He admits that as per the
inspection report the complaint of ongoing unauthorized construction
was against unknown persons. He admits that he has not produced any
evidence that plaintiff Billaluddin Chouhan was carrying construction as
per inspection report dated 30/7/2019 and 13/12/2019.
-- 11 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 12 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
20. Whereas, plaintiff Billaluddin Chouhan RW-1 at Exh.23 has
deposed that he has not committed any contempt of the order of the
Court. The alleged construction was carried out by some unknown
person and Ishitiyak Choudhary. He always obeyed the order of Court.
In his cross examination, he has stated that in the year, 2015 and
onward he sold 20 rooms on the suit plot. He denied that he has
constructed all rooms on the land after passing status-quo order by the
Court. He denied that on 29/7/2019, 30/7/2019 and 13/12/2019 the
officers found the construction was in progress.
21. Herein the present suit, plaintiff has strongly pleaded that the suit
property is situated in Ajij compound and the notice is in respect of
structure in Munshi compound. According to the plaintiff, the suit
property is part of CTS No. 88-1A. Third party Mr. Noor Khan has no
concern with the same. It is to be noted that plaintiff has produced his
agreement. In the agreement schedule of property is given that land in
survey no.165 (part) CTS No. 88 and known as Ajij compound. From
the documents it also appears that earlier owner Mr. Rajaram Ohol was
owner and in occupation of CTS No.88-A part. However, in the
agreement of plaintiff with Mr. Rajaram Hankare there is no mention
about Survey no.88-A part. In the notice dated 15/12/2016 address of
the property wherein unauthorized construction was going on is written
as Munshi compound. Said notice was issued to owner/occupier. The
name of plaintiff was not shown in the notice as a owner/ occupier of
structure. The plaintiff has given reply to the notice on 17/12/2016.
The Designated officer passed speaking order on 24/11/2017 and
negatived contentions made by the plaintiff in respect of the location of
the property. Later on Mr. Noor Khan Pathan added as a defendant in
the suit. My Ld. Predecessor dismissed the notices of motion in suit
-- 12 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 13 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
no.2908/16 and Suit No.1009/16 and held that plaintiff has
constructed 20 rooms and the said construction is unauthorized. If the
unauthorized construction is really in Munshi compound and the
property of plaintiff in Ajij compound, then he had no reason to give a
reply to the notice and file the present suit. Therefore, as discussed
above, I find that the property which is claiming by plaintiff is a notice
structure.
22. Now, the question is whether the plaintiff has breached the order
of injunction. According to plaintiff, he has not made any addition or
alteration. In fact prior to notice under section 354A plaintiff had given
application to the defendant for permission to repair of the suit property
and the application was not decided by the officers of defendant for
considerable period. It is true that in the agreement of plaintiff with Mr.
Rajaram Hankare the schedule of property is given as a land and
structure thereon. However, no specification of structure was given.
The property which was in the name of earlier owner of the plaintiff is
assessed by the Municipal Corporation. As per the assessment bill the
description of property is shown as a tiled shed. There is no mention
about the rooms.
23. Notice dated 15/12/2016 is self speaking. When the officers
visited the premises he found that construction of the rooms was in
progress. In the schedule of the notice it has mentioned that
unauthorized construction of rooms on open plot with B.M. wall, M.S.
angle and AC sheet roof and therefore, the stop work notice was given.
Area of said construction was noted as 24 mtr x 10.4 mtr X 3 mtr
height. The sketch is also given in the notice. It has come on record
that plaintiff could not produced the documents. After giving reply to
-- 13 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 14 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
the notice plaintiff approached to this Court by this suit and as stated
above this Court directed both the parties to maintain status-quo.
Plaintiff was further directed not to carry out any construction work on
the suit site and defendant shall not execute the notice till next date.
The order was continued from time to time. Therefore, in view of the
notice the position was that the rooms which construction was in
progress on the spot was in complete and this Court had specifically
directed the plaintiff not to carry any further construction on the suit
site.
24. Plaintiff has filed various agreements in respect of the rooms
executed by him in favour of various persons. It appears that the said
agreements/sale deeds are executed between the period 8/3/2015 to
2/11/2019. Plaintiff has accepted huge consideration from the
purchaser and gave them the possession of rooms. Thus, this act of the
plaintiff itself shows that inspite the order of status-quo the rooms were
constructed and sold out to various persons.
25. On 13/7/2019 defendant received complaint and again suit site
was inspected by officers. Further, inspection report Exh.19 shows that
the construction on land was going on when the officers visited the site
on 13/12/2019. On 29/7/2019 and 30/7/2019 the site was visited and
it was found that in one of the rooms construction of first floor on
ground floor structure without permission of competent authority was
going on. The said inspection report is at Exh.18. The inspection report
Exh.19 dated 13/12/2019 do show that although the matter is pending
in City Civil Court vide suit no. 2908/16 the occupier of room no.2 has
removed AC sheet roof and construct ladi Coba slab. Panchanama
Exh.20 shows that when officer visited the suit property on 13/12/2019
-- 14 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 15 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
he found that the construction was going on room no.2 and son of
Ishitiyak Choudhary disclosed that said construction is going through
contractor Riyaz Javed Khan. Plaintiff has strongly contended that the
complaint was against unknown person and one Ishitiyak Choudhary.
However, Ishitiyak Choudhary is one of the purchasers of room from
plaintiff.
26. The officers of defendant drew photographs of the suit property.
Defendant has produced the said photographs. It is true that trial of the
suit has not commenced. In N.H. Harsora Private Limited & Anr. Vs.
Designated Officer, Assistant Eng. (B&F) &Anr., Appeal from order (ST)
No.31219/2019 with interim application no. 01/2019, The Hon’ble
High Court held that;
“As far as the photographs produced on record by the Learned
counsel for the respondents-Corporation are concerned, at this
stage, there is no reason to disbelieve the authenticity of the
same. Because, the said photographs are taken by the public
servant in due course of his duty and it is not the case of the
appellants that the concerned public servant is having any
malafide intention or animosity against them. The unauthorized
or illegal construction being carried out by the appellants cannot
be permitted to continue under the seal of the Court”
27. The photographs do show that the construction of first floor, of
room no.2 was in progress.
28. It is true that in the panchanama, it has come that the said first
floor was constructing at the instance of Ishitiyak Choudhary. It is to be
noted that plaintiff has sold one of the rooms to said Ishitiyak
Choudhary. Plaintiff had knowledge about the order of the Court and
-- 15 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 16 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
therefore, he ought to have informed the Ishitiyak Choudhary about
the status-quo order of the Court. The record shows that earlier the
defendant/ Corporation had issued notice dated 26/2/2016 in respect
of 7th rooms. However, the notice dated 15/12/2016 under section
354A of MMC Act, is in respect of the construction of new rooms within
measurement given in the notice. Under section 354A there must be
ongoing construction and if the Designated officer is satisfied that the
erection of any building or the execution of any such work as is
described in section 342 has been unlawfully commenced or is being
unlawfully carried on upon premises, then he may by written notice
require the person erecting such building or executing such work to
stop the same forthwith. Thus, the record shows that work of
construction of rooms was in progress. The work was not completed on
15/12/2016.
29. Sequence of the incidents is that on 15/12/2016 the officers
visited the premises and issued notice under section 354 of MMC Act.
On 17/12/2016 plaintiff gave reply to the notice and on 21/12/16
plaintiff filed present suit. As no speaking order was passed till that
time hence, my Ld. Predecessor directed both the parties to maintain
status-quo and also directed plaintiff that he shall not carry out
construction work on the suit site. Even rooms were completed and
sold to various purchasers. Further, on 29/7/19, 30/7/19 and 13/12/19
the construction of first floor of the room no.2 was in progress. Hence,
in such a circumstances, I find that plaintiff willfully disobeyed the
order of the Court and therefore, he is liable for the consequences of
disobedience of the order of injunction under order 39 rule 2-A of CPC.
30. Defendant has contended that the movable or immovable
-- 16 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 17 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
property of plaintiff be attached however, Mr. Noor Khan Pathan is
added as a defendant in the suit and he is claiming title of the land
wherein structure is standing. The defendant has not produced any
particulars about the property of plaintiff. Hence, I find that in such a
situation it is necessary to detain the plaintiff in civil prison. Therefore, I
answer the points accordingly and pass the following order.
ORDER
1. Notice of Motion No.4102/2019 is allowed as under;
i) Plaintiff Billaluddin Hirakhan Choudhan is to be detained
in a civil prison for a term of two months.
ii) Issue arrest warrant to the plaintiff.
2. Notice of Motion No.4102/2019 is disposed off
accordingly.
(G.B.Gurao)
Judge,
City Civil & Sessions Court,
Date : 09/02/2021. Mumbai.
1. Dictated on : 09/02/2021.
2. Transcribed on : 10/02/2021.
3. Signed on : 11/02/2021.
-- 17 of 18 --
L.C. Suit No. 2908/2016 18 Contempt N/m No.4102/2019.
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
11/02/2020. Mrs. S.S. Sawant
Name of the Judge (with Court Room no.) HHJ Shri G.B.Gurao
(Court Room No.11).
Date of Pronouncement of Judgment/Order 09/02/2021.
Judgment/Order signed by P.O. on 11/02/2021.
Judgment/Order uploaded on 11/02/2021.
-- 18 of 18 --