Partly allowed

Smt. Pushpa Dhuriya Thr. Her Grandson Omprakash Shitaram Dhuriya v. Executive Engineer, Building and Factory Dept. and Another

Bombay HC2 Dec 2022AO/1048/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay allowed the appeal partly, directed the City Civil Court to expedite hearing of a pending notice of motion concerning ad-interim relief within two months, and stayed coercive steps against the appellant's suit structure until then.

What did the court decide?

Appeal partly allowed; City Civil Court directed to expedite notice of motion hearing within two months; no coercive steps against suit structure permitted till then.

Smt. Pushpa Dhuriya Thr. Her Grandson Omprakash Shitaram… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2022)

¶1

501 ao 1048.2022.doc

¶2

Shubhada S Kadam

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1048 OF 2022

¶5

Smt. Pushpa Dhuriya through her Grandson Omprakash Shitaram Dhuriya ….Appellant Versus Executive Engineer, Building and Factory Dept. and others. ….Respondents

¶6

Mr. Satyadev D. Joshi, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. R. Y. Sirsikar, Advocate for the Respondents-MCGM.

¶7

CORAM : S. G. DIGE, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 2^nd DECEMBER, 2022.

¶9

P.C. :

¶10

Mentioned for production. Taken up on production board

¶11

in view of urgency.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit

¶14

structure is erected before the datum line i.e. before 1964, it is not a

¶15

Digitally signed by SHUBHADA 1/3 SHUBHADA SHANKAR SHANKAR KADAM KADAM Date: 2022.12.03 14:29:58 +0530

¶16

501 ao 1048.2022.doc

¶17

Shubhada S Kadam

¶18

temporary structure, it is a permanent structure. He further submitted that respondent has issued notice under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, which is illegal but these facts were not considered by the learned trial court and has rejected the ad-interim relief in favour of the appellant, which is under challenge.

¶19

It is the contention of learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the structure erected by the appellant/original plaintiff is illegal, it is not a permanent structure but a temporary structure. Hence, notice issued under Section 55 of the Maharashtra of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act is legal and the trial court has rightly rejected the ad-interim relief.

¶20

I have heard the submissions of both learned counsel. The trial court has rejected the ad-interim relief. The notice of motion praying for interim relief is pending before the trial court. Both parties are required to be heard on the basis of the documents submitted before the trial court and facts mentioned in the notice of motion.

¶21

2/3

¶22

501 ao 1048.2022.doc

¶23

Shubhada S Kadam

¶24

In view of the above, I pass the following order :

¶25

The appeal from order is partly allowed.

¶26

The City Civil Court is requested to expedite the hearing of the pending notice of motion in respect of interim relief claimed by the appellant as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months on its own merits after the receipt of the order of this Court.

¶27

Till then, no coercive steps shall be taken against the suit structure of the appellant.

¶28

The appeal from order is disposed of in the above terms.

¶29

In view of disposal of appeal from order, pending interim application will not survive for consideration and same is also disposed of.

¶30

(S. G. DIGE, J.)

¶31

3/3

Smt. Pushpa Dhuriya Thr. Her Grandson Omprakash Shitaram Dhuriya v. Executive Engineer, Building and Factory Dept. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pushpa Dhuriya Thr. Her Grandson Omprakash Shitaram Dhuriya v. Executive Engineer, Building and Factory Dept. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Thr. Divisional Traffic Superintedent Vs Raju Kupparav Malake

M/S. Aswaniproperties Thr. Its Partners Shrichand Shamandas Aswani and Anr. Vs Kisnabai Genbhau Bhujbal and Anr.

Sanjay Shankarrao Lade Vs Canara Bank , Circle Officer and Ors.

Mariyan Philip Vaz(Deceased) Thr. Lrs.Margaret Mariyan Vaz and Others Vs Philip Anthony Dsilva and Others

Mariyan Philip Vaz(Deceased) Thr. Lrs.Margaret Mariyan Vaz and Others Vs Philip Anthony Dsilva and Others

Pradnya Prashant Surve and Anr. Vs Konkan Railway Corporation Limited