Bombay High Court
MR. FAHAD KHANversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The appellate court did not interfere with the merits but ordered the trial court to decide the pending Notice of Motion promptly and stay any adverse order for two weeks.
Summary
The appellant, Fahad Khan, challenged a municipal notice alleging unauthorized construction and sought ad‑interim relief, which the trial court denied. The appellant contended that the trial court failed to consider relevant documents, plans, and municipal records before rejecting the relief. The High Court examined whether the trial court erred in denying the interim relief and whether any stay should be granted pending the pending Notice of Motion. It held that the appellate court would not opine on the merits but directed the trial court to decide the Notice of Motion expeditiously on the scheduled date and to stay any adverse order for two weeks to allow further appeal. Consequently, the appeal was disposed without costs, and the status‑quo was maintained until the hearing on 30 October 2026.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate basis for granting or denying ad‑interim relief in a municipal construction dispute?
- Whether the trial court erred in refusing to consider the appellant’s documents and municipal records before denying relief
- Whether a stay of any adverse order from the pending Notice of Motion is warranted
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 104
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 — s. 351(1A)
Subjects
- ad‑interim relief
- municipal corporation
- unauthorized construction
- stay order
- CPC
- MMC Act
- appeal from order
Judgment
1 of 2 10.AO.919.2026.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.919 OF 2026
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7019 OF 2026
Fahad Khan Appellant
versus
Municipal Corpn of Greater Mumbai and another Respondents
_______
Ms.Eshwaree Suraj Kudalkar with Mr.S.M.Sabrad and Mr.Amey C.Sawant for
Appellant.
Ms.Smita Tondwalkar for Respondent MCGM.
_______
CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE : 8th September 2026
P.C.
1. This Appeal from Order has been filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1 read
with Section104 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 taking exception to the order
dated 1st September 2026 (impugned order) passed by learned Trial Court which
has rejected the Appellant’s prayer for ad-interim relief. The primary grievance of
the Appellant in the present Appeal from Order is that the Trial Court has refused
ad-interim relief and failed to appreciate various documents, plans and relevant
municipal records before arriving at the conclusion that the existing notice
structure is an unauthorized construction. A notice under Section 351(1A) of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (`MMC Act’) has been issued on 5 th
Digitally signed by
MANISH MANISH
SURESHRAO
SURESHRAO THATTE June 2026 and subsequently a speaking order dated 6 th August 2026 has been
THATTE Date: 2026.09.09
14:44:14 +0530
passed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (`MCGM’).
M.S.Thatte
2 of 2 10.AO.919.2026.DOC
2. On perusal of the roznama which is the impugned order, it is seen that
the Notice of Motion has been kept for hearing on 30 th October 2026 and
considering that only ad-interim relief has been denied to the Appellant and the
Notice of Motion is pending adjudication, this Court is of the view that the Trial
Court will decide the Notice of Motion as expeditiously as possible on the
adjourned date i.e. 30th October 2026 after considering all the submissions and
documents which are placed on record. It is clarified that this Court has not opined
anything on merits or given any prima facie findings on the merits of the case. If
the order passed on the Notice of Motion 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. The parties shall not
seek adjournment on 30th October 2026.
3. Needless to state that all contentions of the parties are expressly kept
open.
4. The Appeal from Order is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.
Interim Application stands disposed of.
5. Status-quo as of today in respect of the suit premises to continue till the
hearing of Notice of Motion No.4448 of 2026, which is scheduled on 30 th
October 2026.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…