Suresh @ Suryakant K. Salot v. Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay And ANR

11-AO430-17.DOC Atul

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 430 OF 2017 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 550 OF 2017 Suresh Alias Suryakant K Salot ...Appellant

Versus

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr ...Respondents Mr , for the Appellant.

Mr , for the Respondents.

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED:

10th July 2017 PC:- 1.

On 16th June 2017, the Trial Court declined to grant adinterim relief finding that a reply was necessary. It specifically found that there was a discrepancy or incongruity between the description of the property in the Suit and in the notice. In other words, the property that the Plaintiff sought to protect did not show that it was a ground plus two floor structure, or that when the Plaintiff purchased the shop in question it was a ground plus two floor structure.

10th July 2017

11-AO430-17.DOC 2.

The Trial Court only held that the Municipal Corporation will be required to be heard since it had issued the notice, and the notice itself mentions that the Plaintiff was constructing a first and second floor over the existing structure. Clearly, therefore, there was no dispute about the ground floor portion. The objection was to the first and second floor portion. It was for the Plaintiff to show that the first and second floor portion was authorized. This could not have been shown from the material then before the Court. 3.

The Appeal from Order is dismissed. No costs. 4.

The Notice of Motion will be heard on its own merits uninfluenced by the ad-interim order.

5.

The Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of as infructuous.

(G. S. PATEL, J) 10th July 2017