SMT. SUHASINI CHINNAYA SHETTYversusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI THR. ITS MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONERAND ORS

                                                                                 3-ao1027-19.doc

       vai

                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

VASANT
ANANDRAO                           APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1027 OF 2019
IDHOL                                             WITH
                                    CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1187 OF 2019
Digitally signed
by VASANT
ANANDRAO
IDHOL              Smt.Suhasini Chinnaya Shetty                              ...Appellant
Date: 2026.09.05             V/s.
12:11:32 +0530
                   Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors.                ...Respondents


                   Mr.Akash Rebello i/b Mr.Nitesh Acharya for the Appellant.

                   Mr.Narendra V. Walawalkar, Senior Counsel with Ms.Neeta Jadhav
                   i/b Ms.Komal Punjabi for the Respondents – BMC.

                   Mr.Mahesh Nemade, S.E., Maintenance Department H/East Ward is
                   present in Court.

                                     CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.
                                     DATE : 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                   P.C. :-

                   1.           Heard learned counsel for appellant as well as learned

                   senior counsel for respondents.

                   2.           By this Appeal from Order, the appellant / original plaintiff

                   has challenged the order dated 25th July, 2019 passed by the Trial

                   Court refusing ad-interim injunction in the Notice of Motion (St.)

                   No.202849 of 2019 dated 18th July, 2019 in L.C. Suit No.1704 of

                   2019.


                                                       1/3
                                                               3-ao1027-19.doc

3.          The appellant is the original plaintiff, which has filed a civil

suit challenging the notice dated 17th July, 2019 issued by the

Corporation under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town

Planning Act, 1966 (M.R.T.P. Act). In the suit, the plaintiff has filed an

application for temporary injunction and has also prayed for ad-

interim injunction, which came to be refused by the impugned order.

Being aggrieved by refusal of the ad-interim injunction, the instant

appeal is filed.

4.          Record reveals that by an order dated 25th February, 2020

passed by this Court, ad-interim relief is granted in favour of the

appellant / plaintiff, in terms of prayer clause (B) of I.A. No.1187 of

2019, which amounted to grant of temporary prohibitory injunction

restraining the Corporation from demolishing the suit property.

5.          The appellant has attempted to contend that he has got

title to the suit premises and therefore the impugned notice of

demolition is unsustainable. The respondents primary opposition

seems to be on the contentions about availability of alternate

accommodation to the appellant and need for the said land for the

purpose of public project.

6.          Considering the overall case and the fact that ad-interim

relief is operating in this appeal since last about six years, and the

                                    2/3
                                                            3-ao1027-19.doc

Notice of Motion seeking temporary injunction is itself not decided,

instead of deciding the rival contentions on merits, it is desirable that

the Notice of Motion (St.) No.202849 of 2019 dated 18 th July, 2019

itself is directed to be decided on merits.

7.         Accordingly, the instant Appeal against Order is disposed of

with a direction to the Trial Court to decide Notice of Motion (St.)

No.202849 of 2019 dated 18th July, 2019 expeditiously.

8.         Needless to mention that the Trial Court is entitled to

decide the said Notice of Motion independently, on its own merits

without being influenced by any observations recorded earlier by the

Trial Court as well as by this Court.

9.         The respondents are entitled to file their reply to the Notice

of Motion before the Trial Court.

10.        In view of this, it is directed that ad-interim order granted

by this Court which in effect amounts to a restraint order with respect

to the impugned notice dated 17th July 2019, shall continue to operate

during the pendency of the Notice of Motion.

11.        The instant Appeal against Order is accordingly disposed

of. Pending Interim Applications are also disposed of.



                                          (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)


                                    3/3