Bombay High Court
NARESH SHRIRAM CHAUDHARI @ DHOBI AND ORS.versusDESIGNATED OFFICER, WARD-T AND ANR.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court held that the trial court must hear the pending notice of motion within three weeks and any adverse order should be stayed to preserve the appellants’ right to appeal.
Summary
The appellants Naresh Shriram Chaudhari and others appealed against an order of the City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai, which had rejected their interim application seeking a stay on demolition actions under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The trial court had held the notice of motion pending adjudication and refused the ad‑interim relief. The High Court, noting that the trial court had not yet formed a prima facie view, directed that the notice of motion be heard within three weeks and that any adverse order be stayed for two weeks to allow appeal. The Court also allowed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to file a reply affidavit and permitted an intervenor to seek intervention, while prohibiting further adjournments. The High Court’s order disposed of the appeal and the pending interim applications, with the earlier ad‑interim relief continuing until the motion is heard.
Issues considered
- The trial court’s authority to reject ad‑interim relief without a prima facie assessment under Section 351 of the MMC Act
- Whether the High Court can direct expedited hearing of the pending notice of motion
- The continuance of earlier ad‑interim relief pending the hearing of the motion
Legislation cited
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act — s. 351
Subjects
- interim relief
- demolition
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- Section 351
- stay order
- appeal
- procedural direction
Judgment
1 of 3 7.AO.229.2023.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.229 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3212 OF 2023
Naresh Shriram Chaudhari @ Dhobi and others Appellants
versus
Designated Officer, Ward-T and another Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9521 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.229 OF 2023
M/s.Si Kaushal Buildcon, through its Partner
Jerry John David Applicant
versus
Naresh Shriram Chaudhari @ Dhobi and others Respondents
_______
Mr.Pralhad Paranjape for Appellant.
Ms.Smita V.Tondwalkar for Respondent-MCGM.
Mr.Yash Momaya with Mr.Utkarsh Sonadi, Ms.Kashmira Dingankar i/by APS Law
Associates for Intervenor in IA.1921/2024.
_______
CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE : 8th September 2026
P.C.
1. This Appeal from Order has been filed taking exception to the
impugned judgment and order dated 17 th March 2023 passed by the Ad-hoc Judge,
City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai (Court No.4) (`Trial Court’) in Notice of
Digitally signed by
MANISH MANISH
SURESHRAO
SURESHRAO THATTE
THATTE Date: 2026.09.09
14:44:14 +0530
Motion (unregistered) in L.C.Suit No.3204 of 2023 whereby the Trial Judge has
M.S.Thatte
2 of 3 7.AO.229.2023.DOC
rejected the Notice of Motion filed by the Appellants therein for restraining the
Defendant nos.1 and 2 its officers, servants, agents and persons claiming through
the Respondent No.1 from implementing, execution, enforcing or taking any
action of demolition of any nature whatsoever in respect of the suit notice dated 4 th
November 2022 issued under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
(MMC Act) and speaking order dated 2 nd March 2023 passed by the Respondent
No.2 Designated Officer and further disturbing the Appellants lawful use,
occupation and possession of the suit premises suit structure Shop No.2, situated at
Kaushal Niwas, Sarojani Naidu Road, village Mulund (W), Tal. Kurla BSD,
Mumbai.
2. On perusal of the impugned order dated 17 th March 2023 it is seen that
the Notice of Motion is pending adjudication before the Trial Court wherein the
Trial Court would have to deal with the reliefs therein after providing an
opportunity to the parties and on forming a prima facie view on perusal of the
pleadings. The impugned order is an order rejecting ad-interim relief and therefore
without opining anything on merits or giving any prima facie imprimatur of this
Court, it would be in the interest of justice if the learned Trial Court is directed by
this Court to decide upon the Notice of Motion/Interim Application seeking
interim relief as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three
weeks from today. If the said order is adverse to the Plaintiffs, same shall be stayed
for a further period of two weeks from the date of passing the order in order to
enable the Plaintiffs to take recourse to the superior Court.
M.S.Thatte
3 of 3 7.AO.229.2023.DOC
3. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (`MCGM’) is at liberty
to file affidavit-in-reply before the Trial Court within two weeks from today. The
Applicant in Interim Application No.4521 of 2024 is also at liberty to take out
appropriate proceedings for intervention before the Trial Court before the Notice
of Motion is heard. No adjournment shall be sought by either of the parties at the
time of Notice of Motion. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
4. Ad-interim relief granted by this Court by its earlier order dated 30 th
March 2023 shall continue to operate till the Notice of Motion is heard, which is
scheduled after three weeks from today.
5. The Appeal from Order is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
Interim Applications do not survive and stand disposed of.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…