Dismissed¶¶27

Mr. Amarnath Laltaprasad Dubey v. Thane Municipal Corporation Thr Commissioner

Bombay HC10 Nov 2025CRA/508/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Temporary injunction refused where the suit premises had already been demolished by the Thane Municipal Corporation; plaintiff out of possession, no prima facie case or balance of convenience found by the courts below; injunction would have amounted to a pre-trial decree/final relief; revision against orders below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Suit No.181 of 2025 and Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.90 of 2021 dismissed; Interim Application (Stamp) No.28085 of 2025 disposed; CRA 508 of 2025; Bombay High Court; Madhav J. Jamdar, J.; decided 10 November 2025.

What did the court decide?

The entire building of the Respondent–Thane Municipal Corporation, including the suit premises, stands demolished. ¶¶24

Mr. Amarnath Laltaprasad Dubey vs Thane Municipal Corporation Thr Commissioner — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

30-CRA-508-2025.DOC

¶2

Akash Tayde

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.508 OF 2025

¶6

Amarnath Laltaprasad Dubey …Applicant Versus Thane Municipal Corporation Thr. Commissioner …Respondent WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.28085 OF 2025 IN CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.508 OF 2025 Amarnath Laltaprasad Dubey …Applicant Versus Thane Municipal Corporation Thr. Commissioner …Respondent

¶7

Mr. Ashish Dubey i/b Mr. Ashok M Saraogi, for the Applicant

¶8

CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J. DATED : 10^th NOVEMBER 2025

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Dubey, learned Counsel appearing for the

¶11

Petitioner.

¶12

The Challenge in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 24^th June 2025 passed by learned District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Micellaneous Civil Appeal No.90 of 2021 as well as to the order dated 20^th October 2021 passed by learned

Page 1

30-CRA-508-2025.DOC

Akash Tayde

5^th Joint Civil Judge Senior Division, Thane below Exhibit-5 in Regular Civil Suit No.181 of 2025. The said Exhibit-5 Application has been filed by the Applicant who is the Plaintiff seeking temporary injunction restraining the Respondent i.e. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 from dispossessing him from the suit property. The said Application has been dismissed by impugned order dated 20^th October 2025 and the said order is confirmed and the Appeal challenging same has also been dismissed by impugned order dated 24^th June 2025.

¶17

The learned Appellate Court while dismissing the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.90 of 2021 has observed as under :-

¶18

“I t is fact on record that defendant No.1 Municipal Corporation has demolished the entire building and gave it for development. The water and electricity connection is also disconnected. Due to demolition of the building, the plaintiff has lost his possession and also not placed any document on record that he was the tenant of defendant No.2. However, after loosing his possession, again illegally plaintiff has constructed temporary structure and claimed his tenancy. Whether the said structure is legal and authorized and he is lawful tenant or not is the point to be decided on merit after leading evidence . At this stage, it is a fact that the suit premises is demolished and the plaintiff has not lost his tenancy rights. Therefore, prima faice case is not in his favour nor balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff. If the temporary injunction as prayed by plaintiff is granted, it will amounts to granting him final

Page 2

30-CRA-508-2025.DOC

Akash Tayde

relief, and would have ended-up granting a pre-trial decree in his favour, which is not at all permissible.”

¶23

[Emphasis Added]

¶24