Ramchandra Gyanoba Lone v. Municipal Corporation For Greater Mumbai And ANR
Dixit
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO.1 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.2 OF 2018 Dayanand Dattatray Some .... Appellant-Applicant V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.
.... Respondents ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO.3 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.4 OF 2018 Vidya Sagar Mariba Waghmare .... Appellant-Applicant V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.
.... Respondents ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO.5 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.6 OF 2018 Ramchandra Gyanoba Lone .... Appellant-Applicant V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.
.... Respondents ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO.7 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.8 OF 2018 Savita Laxman Adkute .... Appellant-Applicant V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.
.... Respondents 1/4
ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO.9 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.10 OF 2018 Moglaji Vithal Sawale .... Appellant-Applicant V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.
.... Respondents ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO.11 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.12 OF 2018 Dilip Dattatray Some .... Appellant-Applicant V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.
.... Respondents ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO.13 OF 2018 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.14 OF 2018 Dashrath Sambhaji Kamble .... Appellant-Applicant V/s.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr.
.... Respondents Mr. Kameshwar R. Tiwari for the Appellants-Applicants. Mrs. Madhuri More for the Respondent-MCGM.
CORAM : DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.
DATE : 21 ST AUGUST, 2018.
P.C. :
1.
Heard Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel for the Appellants-Applicants, and Mrs. More, learned counsel for the Respondent-Municipal Corporation.
2/4
2.
This Appeal is preferred against the refusal of the ad-interim relief by the Court of City Civil Court, Mumbai, in Draft Notice of Motion in L.C. Suit No.3759 of 2017.
3.
The grievance of the Appellants is that, they are in possession of the suit premises since prior to the year 1995 and without issuing any personal notices to them, the Respondent-Municipal Corporation has initiated action for demolition of the suit structures and, therefore, Respondent-Municipal Corporation be restrained from demolishing the suit structures. However, learned counsel for the Respondent-Municipal Corporation has pointed out that, the suit structures have already been demolished, after following the due process of law. The photographs to that effect dated 11th December 2017 and 12th December 2017 are not only produced before this Court, but were also produced before the Trial Court, which clearly go to show that the suit structures are not in existence and they are already duly demolished. 4.
In view thereof, the Trial Court was perfectly justified in refusing the relief of ad-interim injunction to the Appellants and no interference is warranted in the said order. These Appeals, therefore, stand dismissed.
5.
At this stage, learned counsel for the Appellants requests for 3/4
appointment of the 'Court Commissioner' to prove that the suit structures are still in existence. Learned counsel for the Appellants also produces the photographs to show that the suit structures are in existence; however, the photographs are not having the date, on which day they were taken, and the Appellants, if at all want to appoint the 'Court Commissioner', the proper mode for the Appellants is to approach the Trial Court.
6.
In view of the dismissal of the Appeals, the Civil Applications pending therein do not survive and the same are disposed off as infructuous.
[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] 4/4