Bombay High Court
HAJARILAL RAJ KISHORE YADAVversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- MILIND N JADHAV
Holding
The appellate court disposed of the appeal, directing the trial court to decide the notice of motion afresh without being influenced by the impugned ad‑interim order.
Summary
The appellant, Hajarilal Raj Kishore Yadav, challenged an ad‑interim order of the trial court that had been issued following a show‑cause notice and speaking order from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The appeal sought relief from the interim directives and questioned the trial court’s handling of the notice of motion and the rights of a landowner who sought to intervene. The High Court directed the trial court to determine the notice of motion afresh, hear the intervening landowner, and issue a reasoned order within four weeks, while prohibiting any coercive action against the appellant’s structure for a week after any adverse final order. The court also granted the plaintiff leave to file a rejoinder to the corporation’s affidavit. Without addressing the merits, the appellate court disposed of the appeal and both interim applications.
Issues considered
- What procedural steps must the trial court follow in determining the notice of motion after an ad‑interim order?
- Whether the trial court should be influenced by the observations in the impugned ad‑interim order.
- Whether coercive steps can be taken against the appellant’s structure pending final determination.
- The right of a landowner to intervene in the suit.
Subjects
- interim order
- show‑cause notice
- notice of motion
- intervention
- coercive steps
- appellate jurisdiction
- municipal corporation
Judgment
17. AO-20-2026.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 20 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 153 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 151 OF 2026
Hajarilal Raj Kishore 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
17. AO-20-2026.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
17. AO-20-2026.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
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.01.17
16:37:16
+0530
3 of 3
Checking your session…