Mr. Girish Jalan Thr. His Ca Mr. Deepak B. Saraf v. Assistant Engineer (Maintenance)K-West Ward Municipal Office And ANR

Dixit

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (STAMP) NO.772 OF 2019 Girish Jalan, Through his C.A. Deepak B. Saraf .... Appellant V/s.

Asst. Engineer (Maintenance), K-West Ward, Municipal Office, Andheri (West) and Anr.

.... Respondents Mr. Gauraj Shah, I/by Mr. Mangesh Humane, for the Appellant. Mrs. Madhuri More for the Respondent-MCGM.

CORAM

: DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.

DATE : 18 TH JANUARY, 2019.

P.C. :

1.

Heard learned counsel for both the parties.

2.

This Appeal is directed against the order dated 21st December 2018 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Notice of Motion No.4443 of 2018 in L.C. Suit No.3745 of 2018.

3.

By the said Notice of Motion, the Trial Court has refused the adinterim relief of injunction to the Appellant, as it was in the nature of mandatory injunction, directing the Respondent-MCGM to restore the 1/2 AO(St.)-772-19.doc

premises, which were demolished, pursuant to the notice and, that too, for the public cause.

4.

In view thereof, absolutely no reason is made out to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, as the law is well settled that the relief of interim mandatory injunction can be granted only in rare and exceptional cases. When the suit premises are required by the Respondent-Municipal Corporation for the public interest, then it is needless to state that, such rare or exceptional circumstance is not made out for the grant of ad-interim mandatory injunction. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the ad-interim mandatory injunction. 5.

In Appeal from such a discretionary order, no interference is warranted at the hands of the Appellate Court; especially when the Notice of Motion is pending before the Trial Court. The Appeal, therefore, stands dismissed.

[DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.] 2/2 AO(St.)-772-19.doc