Bombay High Court
RAMESH BAKSURAM BUSWALAversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellate court allowed the appeal, directing the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously within three months while keeping all parties’ contentions open and restraining MCGM from acting under Section 351 of the MMC Act until the suit is decided.
Summary
The appellant, Ramesh Baksuram Buswala, sought a temporary injunction to restrain the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) from taking action against his four‑storey suit structure at Kherwadi, Bandra, alleging that the building was a tolerated structure falling within the 1961‑62 datum line. The trial court rejected the notice of motion for injunction, holding that the appellant had not produced evidence to prove the tolerated status. On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial court ignored assessment records and that interim protection granted in 2016 had been continuously extended, making the suit ripe for adjudication. The MCGM contended that no documentary proof of tolerance had been produced and that the trial court’s order was correct. The High Court held that the parties’ contentions could be fully ventilated during the trial and, given the long‑standing interim protection, directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously within three months, keeping all arguments open and prohibiting MCGM from acting under Section 351 of the MMC Act until disposal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the interim application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the trial court erred in rejecting the appellant’s notice of motion for a temporary injunction restraining MCGM from acting against the suit structure.
- Whether the suit structure qualifies as a tolerated structure within the 1961‑62 datum line.
- Whether the interim protection granted in 2016 should continue pending final disposal of the suit.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- temporary injunction
- interim relief
- tolerated structure
- municipal corporation
- Section 351
- expeditious disposal
- civil appeal
Judgment
1 of 3 13.AO.941.2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.941 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7401 OF 2026
Ramesh Baksuram Buswala,
Plot No.3, Kherwadi, Bandra (East), Appellant
Mumbai-400051. (Plaintiff)
versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, Respondent
at Mumbai. (Defendant)
_______
Mr.Nikhil Rajeshirke with Mr.Veerdhawal Deshmukh and Mr.Hemant Chawla for
Appellant.
Ms.Smita Tondwalkar for Respondent-MCGM.
_______
CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE : 21st September 2026
P.C.
1. This Appeal from Order has bee filed taking exception to the order
dated 7th September 2026 passed by the Judge, City Civil Court, Borivali Division,
Dindoshi (`Trial Court’) in Notice of Motion No.437 of 2018 in L.C.Suit
No.3078 of 2016 rejecting the Notice of Motion filed by the Appellant refusing to
grant temporary injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai (`MCGM’), its agents, servant and any persons claiming through or under
it from taking action in any manner against the suit structure in pursuance of the
Digitally signed by
MANISH MANISH
SURESHRAO
SURESHRAO THATTE Notice dated 1st July 2016 under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation
THATTE Date: 2026.09.21
17:17:31 +0530
Act, 1888 (`MMC Act’) and the order dated 27 th October 2016 passed in respect of
M.S.Thatte
2 of 3 13.AO.941.2026.DOC
the suit structure being ground floor + 2 upper floors admeasuring about 40’x45’
situated at Plot No.3, CTS No.453 of Village Bandra, Taluka Andheri, Mumbai
Suburban District at Kherwadi, Bandra (East), Mumbai.
2. Learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Trial Court
has not taken into consideration the documents which were submitted at the time
of hearing of the Notice of Motion to support his contention that the suit structure
is a tolerated structure and falls within the datum line of 1961-62. He has sought
to place on record the assessment records of the MCGM to show that the said suit
structure is a tolerated structure. He has also submitted that ad-interim relief in
respect of the suit structure dated 29 th November 2016 granted by this Court is
continued from the year 2016 and further a co-ordinate Bench of this Court by
order dated 31st January 2020 has also continued the said ad-interim relief. Further
the Trial Court also post passing the impugned order, has continued the ad-interim
protection for a further period of two weeks from the date of impugned order i.e.
up to today 21st September 2026. He has submitted that the suit is ripe for
hearing and pending adjudication, which has been kept for recording evidence on
27th October 2026.
3. Learned counsel on behalf of the MCGM has submitted that there are
no documents which the Appellant has produced to show that the suit structure is a
tolerated structure and further that the impugned order passed is the correct order.
4. This Court is of the view that all these contentions can be raised at the
time of hearing of the suit and considering that interim protection has been
granted to the Appellant from the year 2016 and as MCGM has not taken steps to
M.S.Thatte
3 of 3 13.AO.941.2026.DOC
vacate the said interim protection, without deciding on the merits of the matter or
without forming a prima facie view whether the impugned order has been rightly
passed, this Court is of the opinion that, the Trial Court decides the suit as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the
date this order is uploaded.
5. Hence, I pass following order :
ORDER
(i) Appeal from Order is allowed and disposed of;
(ii) The Trial Court to dispose of L.C.Suit No.3078 of 2016 as
expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the
date this order is uploaded;
(iii) All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open;
(iv) It is directed that the parties shall not seek any adjournment and co-
operate with the Trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the suit;
(v) The MCGM shall not take any steps in pursuance of Notice dated 1 st
July 2016 under Section 351 of MMC Act and the order dated 27 th October 2016
till disposal of the suit;
(vi) Appeal from Order is disposed of. Interim Application No.7401 of
2026 does not survive and disposed of as such. No costs.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.