Mrs. Kikiben Vasant Patel And ORS v. Dattaramanand Co-Operative Housing Society Limited And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO.14708 OF 2015 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.14709 OF 2015 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO14708 OF 2015 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders.

Mr.Diwakar A. Dwivedi for the appellant Mr.Simil Purohit with Mr.Tushar Goradia with Mr.Kalpesh Mehta i/b M/s.Pravin Mehta and Mithi and Co. for the respondent no.1 Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Counsel with Mr.S.K.Sonavane with Mr.A.K.Nandanwar for the BMC

CORAM

: K.K.TATED, J.

DATED : 09/06/2015 PC:

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

This Appeal from Order is preferred by plaintiff challenging the order dated 9.5.2015 passed by Bombay City Civil Court, Mumbai in draft Notice of Motion in L.C.Suit No.1251 of 2015 declining to grant ad-interim relief.

1/3

The main dispute in the present proceeding is about the area. It is the case of the Corporation that the plaintiffs extended their structure from 148.50 sq.ft. to 672.5 sq.ft.i.e. extension area is

525. Appellants failed to produce any document to show that the entire area of the suit premises was authorised. The Trial Court has considered all the documents placed on record by the plaintiffs. Not a single document shows that the entire area of the suit structure about 672.5 sq.ft. is authorised.

Considering these facts, documents on record and the reasons recorded by the Trial Court in order, I do not find any reason to entertain the present Appeal from Order.

Appeal from Order is rejected.

The learned counsel for the appellants seeks extension of status quo order passed by this court for some time to approach the Apex Court.

The learned counsel for both the respondents vehemently opposed the same. They submit that the Trial Court has considered all the documents on record. They submit that the plaintiffs failed to place on record any document to show that they were in possession of authorised 672.5 sq.ft. area. Considering these facts, I do not find any reason to extend the status quo order passed by 2/3

this court. Hence, request made by the Advocate for appellant is declined.

Civil application stands disposed in view of dismissal of Appeal from Order.

(K.K.TATED, J.) 3/3