Amjad A. Rehman Khan v. Municipal Corporation Of Greater Bombay And ORS.

Vidya Amin

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 1675 OF 2018 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 11 OF 2018 Akhtar Husein A. Gani REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 1648 OF 2018 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 15 OF 2018 Fahmida Akhtar Husein REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 1659 OF 2018 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 17 OF 2018 Ramchandra B. More REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 1664 OF 2018 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 22 OF 2018 Noorul Hasan Chaudhary 1 / 5

REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 1665 OF 2018 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 12 OF 2018 Haroon Nair Hussain REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 1671 OF 2018 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 14 OF 2018 Rais Shaikh REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 1673 OF 2018 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 16 OF 2018 Atharullah Rahmatullah Shaikh REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 1674 OF 2018 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 23 OF 2018 Amjad A. Rehman Khan 2 / 5

REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 1676 OF 2018 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 19 OF 2018 Ibrahim B. Bilgi REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 1678 OF 2018 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 18 OF 2018 Mohammad Hasanul Moiz REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 1679 OF 2018 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 13 OF 2018 Shafee Shabir Khan REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 1682 OF 2018 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 21 OF 2018 Sayed Salim Mr. L.K. Tripathi a/w. Utkarsha Shukla i/b. C.K. Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Kevic Setalwad, Senior Advocate a/w. Ms. Madhuri More, 3 / 5

Advocate for the respondent/Corporation.

Mr. Chirag Balsara a/w. Mr. Pratap M. Nimbalkar, Advocate for the Landlord.

CORAM: MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.

DATE: 23rd January, 2018.

P.C.:

Upon mentioning, taken on production board.

2.

These Review Petitions are directed against the order dated 18th December, 2017 thereby maintaining the order of the trial Court refusing ad-interim relief. These Review Petitions are made only on one point that the petitioners now have found a letter dated 12th August, 2009 issued by Assistant Engineer (Building & Factory) H/W Ward to Advocate Mr. Dinesh T. Gandhy, who was the counsel of the owner of the property.

3.

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in this letter, the Corporation has stated that the structures are not of recent origin and they are to be protected unless the structure are verified the censured structures by the Collector.

4.

The learned senior counsel for the Corporation opposed these Review Petitions on the ground that they are not maintainable. 4 / 5

5.

Perused the letter and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. I am of the view that these Review Petitions are not coming within the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure and hence the Review Petitions are dismissed. The letter on which the petitioners are relying can be filed before the trial Court in the proceedings. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) 5 / 5