Bombay High Court

RAM SURESH SEVLA PRASAD YADAVversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ANR

Decided: 17 January 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: MILIND N JADHAV

Holding

The appeal is disposed of, directing the trial court to determine the notice of motion, hear the intervenor, and refrain from coercive steps, without expressing any view on the merits.

Summary

The appellant, Ram Suresh Sevla Prasad Yadav, appealed an ad‑interim order of the trial court that had been issued following a show‑cause notice from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The appeal concerned the trial court’s handling of the notice of motion and the pending intervention by a landowner. The High Court directed the trial court to determine the notice of motion, hear the intervenor, and issue a reasoned speaking order within four weeks, granting the plaintiff leave to file a rejoinder. It also ordered that no coercive steps be taken against the appellant’s structure for a week after any adverse final order. Without addressing the merits, the appellate court disposed of the appeal and both interim applications.

Issues considered

Whether the ad‑interim order of the trial court should be set aside or modified.
Whether the trial court must hear the intervenor and decide the notice of motion expeditiously.
Whether coercive steps can be taken against the appellant pending the final order on the notice of motion.

Subjects

appeal
interim order
show‑cause notice
intervention
coercive steps
notice of motion
civil procedure

Judgment

                                                                     15. AO-16-2026.odt


Amberkar

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                            APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 16 OF 2026
                                          WITH
                           INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 140 OF 2026
                                          WITH
                           INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 138 OF 2026

           Ram Suresh Sevla Prasad Yadav                   .. Appellant
                     Versus
           The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
           & Anr.                                          .. Respondents
                                      ....................
            Mr. Abhinav Chandrachud a/w Mr. Rajkumar Awasthi i/by Mr.
              Manish Tomar, Advocates for Appellant
            Mr. Sachin Vajale, Advocates for Respondents
            Mr. Pradip Thorat a/w Mr. Aniesh Jadhav, Mr. Karan Gajra, Mr.
             Avinash Bailmare a/w Mr. Shubham B.Choudhar i/by Mr. Nikhil
             Adkine, Advocates for Intervener
                                         ...................
                                        CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                        DATE          : JANUARY 17, 2026
           P. C.:

           1.       Heard Mr. Chandrachud, learned Advocate for Appellant; Mr.

           Vajale, learned Advocate for Respondents - Corporation and Mr.

           Thorat, learned Advocate for Intervener. It is mentioned at the time of

           discharging the Board due to apprehension expressed by the

           Appellant.     Mr. Thorat has appeared after the order is dictated in

           Court on behalf of the intervener - landowner. I have also heard him

           on his objections.




                                                                                 1 of 3
                                                          15. AO-16-2026.odt


2.    Challenge in the present Appeal from Order (AO) is to the ad-

interim order passed by the learned Trial Court pursuant to the

issuance of show-cause-notice and speaking order passed by the

Designated Officer of the Corporation. Suit proceeding has been filed.

It is prima facie seen that the material which is produced by Appellant

- Org. Plaintiff is required to be considered by the learned Trial Court

in accordance with law. Considering that impugned order is an ad-

interim order and Notice of Motion is pending final hearing, the

learned Trial Court is directed to determine the Notice of Motion and

pass appropriate reasoned speaking order after considering the case of

Plaintiff and Corporation. Learned Trial Court shall also hear the

landowner who has filed Chamber Summons seeking intervention in

the Suit while deciding the Notice of Motion. Learned Trial Court is

directed to decide the Notice of Motion as expeditiously as possible

and in any event within a period of four weeks from today. Leave to

file rejoinder is granted to the Plaintiff to the affidavit in reply of the

Corporation.


3.    Learned Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the

observations made in the impugned order and accordingly determine

the same.


4.    In the meantime, no coercive steps shall be taken against the

structure of the Appellant and further for a period of one week after

                                                                      2 of 3
                                                                   15. AO-16-2026.odt


           passing of the final order in the Notice of Motion if the said order is

           adverse to the Plaintiff.


           5.        Without expressing any opinion on merits, present Appeal from

           Order stands disposed of in the above terms.             Both Interim

           Applications are also disposed.



Amberkar                                          [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

                       Digitally signed
                       by RAVINDRA
            RAVINDRA MOHAN
                     AMBERKAR
            MOHAN    Date:
            AMBERKAR 2026.01.17
                       16:33:53
                       +0530




                                                                               3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…