Order 1

Order Details: Other
Pdf Text: 1 Ad-Int Order on draft NM in SU2981-19
IN THE CITY CIVIL COURT FOR GREATER BOMBAY
AT MUMBAI.
ORDER ON AD INTERIM RELIEFS ON
DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION
IN
SUIT NO. 2981 OF 2019
(CNR no. MHCC010117252019)
Mr. Rohidas Ambaji Pawar ]
Age : 48 years, Occupation Service ]
residing at Barve Chawl No.9, Ganesh Ele, ]
Sainath Nagar Road, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai400 086. ]... Plaintiff
Versus
Designated officer (B&F Dept) 'N' Ward Office ]
Brihmumbai Mahanagarpalika, 'N' Ward, ]
Annex Bldg., Jawahar Road, Ghatkopar (E), ]
Mumbai 400 077. ]....Defendant
Appearances:
Ld. Advocate Mr. Ashutosh Shukla with Ld. Advocate Mr. Shailesh
Shukla for the Plaintiff.
Ld. Advocate Mrs. D. D. Patil for Defendant/MCGM.
CORAM : HIS HONOUR JUDGE
SHRI C. V. MARATHE
(Court Room no. 8)
DATED : 21st November, 2019
O R A L O R D E R O N A D I N T E R I M R E L I E F
1. Perused Plaint, documents annexed thereto, Notice of
Motion and heard both sides on adinterim relief. Ld. Advocate for the
plaintiff has prayed to direct defendant/MCGM to pass fresh order
under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
(hereinafter "MMC Act") as reply dated 11.11.2019 filed by the plaintiff
-- 1 of 3 --
2 Ad-Int Order on draft NM in SU2981-19
was not considered before passing the order. Ld. Advocate for the
plaintiff further argued that the height of the suit premises is well
within permissible limits and therefore, the action of defendant/MCGM
is illegal. After going through the record, the plaintiff was served with
notice under Section 351 of MMC Act dated 11.06.2019. He did not file
reply till 25.10.2019 i.e. for a period of more than 4 months when he
was given time of only 7 days from 11.06.2019. Therefore, the plaintiff
cannot claim that his reply dated 11.11.2019 will have to be considered
by defendant/MCGM. It is pertinent to note that the notice is given to
unauthorized extension of first floor to existing ground floor structure.
Therefore, it is not the case that whole building is found unauthorized.
However, the documents of occupation are not sufficient to prove
authorization of the first floor. Therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for ad
interim relief. Hence, adinterim relief is liable to be rejected and
following order:
ORDER
Adinterim reliefs in terms of the prayers is rejected.
(C. V. Marathe)
Judge,
Date : 21.11.2019 City Civil Court, Gr. Mumbai.
Dictated on : 21.11.2019
Transcribed on : 21.11.2019
Signed by HHJ on : 22.11.2019
-- 2 of 3 --
3 Ad-Int Order on draft NM in SU2981-19
CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL
SIGNED JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME : 22.11.2019 at 12.25 p.m.
NAME OF STENOGRAPHER : Mrs. Gayatri P. Acharekar
Name of the Judge (With
Court Room no.)
HHJ Shri. C. V. Marathe
C.R. no.08
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ORDER
21/11/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed
by P.O. on
22/11/2019
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded
on
22/11/2019
-- 3 of 3 --