Allowed

Dr. Kishore S/O Moreshwar Pimparkar v. Akola Municipal Corporation, through Its Municipal Commissioner, Akola and Another

Bombay HC10 Jun 2024WP/304/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the trial court's order rejecting an application seeking disclosure of flat purchasers by the builder-defendant. The Court held that the trial court failed to take a pragmatic view and that purchasers must be given an opportunity of hearing before demolition, directing the builder to furnish purchaser details.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was quashed and set aside. The application was allowed, and the respondent-builder was directed to furnish details of flat purchasers within one month.

Dr. Kishore S/O Moreshwar Pimparkar Vs Akola Municipal… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:5914

¶2

23-WP-304-2019.odt 1

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 304 OF 2019

¶5

Dr. Kishore s/o Moreshwar Pimparkar, aged about 58 years, Occ. Service, Swammi, State Bank of India Colony No.1, Jatharpeth, Akola.

¶6

... PETITIONER

¶7

Versus

¶8

1] Akola Municipal Corporation, through its Municipal Commissioner, Akola Municipal Corporation, Akola.

¶9

2] Shri Bhalchandra Govind Mahashabde, aged about 50 years, Occ. Builder, B.G. Construction & Developers, having its construction site SBI Colony No.1, Jatharpeth, Akola.

¶10

... RESPONDENTS

¶11

Shri A.R. Deshpande, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Amol Deshpande, Counsel for respondent no.1. Shri U.J. Deshpande, Counsel for respondent no.2.

¶12

CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE, J. DATE : JUNE 10, 2024

¶13

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶14

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

¶15

by consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

¶16

2] The challenge is to order dated 30/10/2018 passed

¶17

below Exh. 65 by the learned 6^th Joint Civil Judge Senior

¶18

23-WP-304-2019.odt 2

¶19

Division, Akola, in Regular Civil Suit No. 907/2012.

¶20

3] The petitioner – original plaintiff has filed suit against the respondents – original defendants seeking mandatory injunction directing respondent no.1 to demolish the alleged illegal construction carried out by respondent no.2. According to the plaintiff, respondent no.2 – Builder and Developer has constructed a flat scheme, which is not in accordance with the construction norms. One of the violations is the requisite margin has been not left. In other words, additional construction has been allegedly made. According to the petitioner, respondent no.1 – Corporation has supported the stand taken by the petitioner. The learned Counsel for respondent no.2 admits such status.

¶21

4] The petitioner came to know that pending suit, respondent no.2 has sold flats to various persons. The petitioner was of the view that if his prayer in the suit is allowed, the disputed construction will be demolished, which will affect the rights of the purchasers. Accordingly, he moved

¶22

23-WP-304-2019.odt 3

¶23

an application (Exh. 65) calling upon respondent no.2 to furnish the names of the purchasers. The learned trial Court has rejected the application on the ground that it is the duty of the purchasers to verify documents before purchasing a flat and, thus, they will be responsible for all the consequences that would follow, if they were not diligent.

¶24

5] To my mind, the trial Court committed error in not taking a pragmatic view in the matter. The Court expects the purchasers to know the niceties of rules of construction and to go in depth as regards the documents on the point of legitimacy of construction. A purchaser usually does not go into such details particularly as the necessity of margin to be left while constructing a flat scheme. In any case, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is correct in contending that if a suit is to be decreed, the sufferer will be the purchasers, who should be given opportunity of hearing before passing any order of demolition.

¶25

6] The learned Counsel for respondent no.2 has opposed the petition on the ground that there is no provision in

¶26

23-WP-304-2019.odt 4

¶27

law to file application as filed by the petitioner - plaintiff. He, however, could not show any bar to file such application as well. The procedural law may not provide for each contingency that would arise pending suit. The trial Court is empowered to entertain such application and issue such directions as necessary to have effective and proper adjudication of the suit. In that view of the matter, the trial Court has committed error by not allowing the application. The order impugned is therefore unsustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside.

¶28

7] The order impugned is accordingly quashed and set aside. The application (Exh. 65) is allowed. Respondent no.2 is directed to furnish details of flat purchasers to the petitioner within one month from today.

¶29

8] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with

¶30

no order as to costs.

¶31

JUDGE

¶32

Sumit

Dr. Kishore S/O Moreshwar Pimparkar v. Akola Municipal Corporation, through Its Municipal Commissioner, Akola and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Kishore S/O Moreshwar Pimparkar v. Akola Municipal Corporation, through Its Municipal Commissioner, Akola and Another

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

Sheikh Mahmood S/O Sheikh Mahboob vs State of Ma. Thr. Pso Ps Wathoda Nagpur

Ali Osman S.K. and Others Vs Official Liquidator High Court, Nagpur and Liquidator of M/S Maharashtra Explosive Ltd.

Shri Shyam Namadeo Rahulkar and Others Vs Official Liquidator High Court Nagpur and Liquidator of M/S Maharashtra Explosive Ltd.

Progressive Education Society, through Its Secretary, Hinganghat and 1 Vs Ku. Nalanda Ramdasji Raut and Another

Faiz Ahmad Biyabani S/O Nazeer Ahmad Biyabani and Another Vs Eknath S/O Ganpat Galgelwar and Others

Smt. Badamibai Wd/O Dayalchand Tiwari Vs Gajanan Dayalchand Tiwari and Ors.