Allowed

Sardar Krishan Singh v. the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

Bombay HC7 Nov 2023CAA/154/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge order restored a civil application for restoration of an appeal dismissed for default and disposed of the main appeal challenging the refusal of ad-interim relief, allowing the appellant-plaintiff liberty to argue the original notice of motion before the City Civil Court.

What did the court decide?

Civil Application allowed for restoration; Appeal disposed of with liberty to argue the notice of motion in the City Civil Court.

Sardar Krishan Singh Vs the Brihanmumbai… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

Neeta Sawant 1/3 11-CAA-154-2019.doc 7 November 2023.

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 154 OF 2019

¶4

¶5

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1238 OF 2015

¶6

¶7

DRAFT NOTICE OF MOTION NO. ____ OF 2015 IN

¶8

L.C. SUIT NO. 1325 OF 2015

¶9

Sardar Krishan Singh …Applicant (Orig. Appellant) V/s. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ….Respondent

¶10

WITH

¶11

APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1238 OF 2015

¶12

Sardar Krishan Singh …Appellant (Orig. Plaintiff) V/s. The Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ….Respondent

¶13

Mr. Anil R. Mishra , for the Applicant-Appellant.

¶14

Mrs. Smita Tondwalkar , for the Respondent.

¶15

CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. Dated : 7 November 2023.

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

Neeta Sawant 2/3 11-CAA-154-2019.doc 7 November 2023.

¶18

Civil Application No. 154 of 2019 :

¶19

This Civil Application is filed seeking restoration of the Appeal which was dismissed for default vide order dated 10 September 2018. There is delay of 97 days in filing the Civil Application. Perusal of the order dated 10 September 2018 would indicate that the suit structure was already demolished before 10 September 2018. The learned counsel for the Applicant would dispute this position and would submit that only partial demolition was carried out. Be that as it may, the Appeal is being taken up for disposal, considering that an order refusing ad-interim relief is challenged in the Appeal. Accordingly for the limited purpose of disposal of the Appeal, the Civil Application is allowed. Appeal from Order is restored to file.

¶20

Appeal from Order No. 1238 of 2015 :

¶21

The Appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the City Civil Court on 9 May 2015 refusing ad-interim relief in draft Notice of Motion tendered by the Appellant-Plaintiff. By now, period of 8 long years have lapsed since ad-interim relief was refused to the Appellant-Plaintiff. While dismissing the present Appeal for default, this Court has taken note of photographs placed on record by Municipal Corporation to indicate that the suit structure has already been demolished. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant would contend that only a partial demolition of the suit structure was carried out by the Municipal Corporation. He would further submit

¶22

Neeta Sawant 3/3 11-CAA-154-2019.doc 7 November 2023.

¶23

that this Court had directed the parties to maintain status-quo vide order dated 21 May 2015. He would further submit that relief sought in the Notice of Motion would still continue to survive and that the Appellant-Plaintiff be granted liberty to press the Notice of Motion. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of with liberty to the AppellantPlaintiff to argue the Notice of Motion before the City Civil Court for its decision. The City Civil Court shall proceed to decide the Notice of Motion without being influenced by any of the orders passed in the present Appeal. With the above observations, the Appeal is disposed of.

¶24

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

¶25

NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT

¶26

Digitally signed by NEETA SHAILESH SAWANT Date: 2023.11.10 15:36:36 +0530

Sardar Krishan Singh v. the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sardar Krishan Singh v. the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kunnummal S/O. Damodharan and Anr. Vs C. Chandrakaldharan and Ors.

Shaista Majid Khan and Ors. Vs Ramprasad Deepram Gupta and Anr.

Vibha Vithhal Adulkar Alias Ratnaprabha Eknath Sawant Vs Shantaram Bhiwa Sawant and Another

Jal Vayu Defence Enclave Cooperative Housing Society Vs Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Cidco) and Ors.

M/S. Gagan Emarald Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs M/S. Gagan Associates and Ors.

Sudhakar Co-Op. Hou. Soc. Ltd. Thr. Secretary Vs the Hon. District Deputy Registrar Co-Op Soc. and Ors.