Bombay High Court
M/S. SAI KAUSHAL BUILDCON, THR. ITS PARTNER MR. JERRY JOHN DAVIDversusNARESH SHRIRAM CHAUDHARI @ DHOBI AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court directed the trial court to hear the pending notice of motion within three weeks and stay any adverse order for two weeks, while maintaining its own ad‑interim relief.
Summary
The appellants, Naresh Shriram Chaudhari and others, appealed against the trial court’s order rejecting their interim application seeking a stay on demolition actions under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The trial court had dismissed the notice of motion without a prima facie assessment, prompting the appellants to seek appellate intervention. The High Court observed that the notice of motion remained pending and required a substantive hearing, directing the trial court to decide the matter within three weeks and to stay any adverse order for two weeks to allow further recourse. The Court also allowed the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to file a reply affidavit and permitted an intervenor to seek intervention, while prohibiting adjournments at the hearing. The appellate court’s ad‑interim relief continued to operate until the hearing, and the appeal was disposed with the pending interim applications deemed disposed.
Issues considered
- The trial court’s authority to reject an interim application without a prima facie assessment
- Whether the High Court should stay any adverse order pending a hearing of the notice of motion
- Procedural rights of the Municipal Corporation and intervenors to file affidavits and intervene
Legislation cited
- Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act — s. 351
Subjects
- interim relief
- municipal demolition
- Section 351 MMC Act
- stay order
- appellate jurisdiction
- notice of motion
Judgment
1 of 3 7.AO.229.2023.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.229 OF 2023
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3212 OF 2023
Naresh Shriram Chaudhari @ Dhobi and others Appellants
versus
Designated Officer, Ward-T and another Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9521 OF 2024
IN
APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.229 OF 2023
M/s.Si Kaushal Buildcon, through its Partner
Jerry John David Applicant
versus
Naresh Shriram Chaudhari @ Dhobi and others Respondents
_______
Mr.Pralhad Paranjape for Appellant.
Ms.Smita V.Tondwalkar for Respondent-MCGM.
Mr.Yash Momaya with Mr.Utkarsh Sonadi, Ms.Kashmira Dingankar i/by APS Law
Associates for Intervenor in IA.1921/2024.
_______
CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J.
DATE : 8th September 2026
P.C.
1. This Appeal from Order has been filed taking exception to the
impugned judgment and order dated 17 th March 2023 passed by the Ad-hoc Judge,
City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai (Court No.4) (`Trial Court’) in Notice of
Digitally signed by
MANISH MANISH
SURESHRAO
SURESHRAO
Motion (unregistered) in L.C.Suit No.3204 of 2023 whereby the Trial Judge has
THATTE
THATTE Date: 2026.09.09
14:44:14 +0530
M.S.Thatte
2 of 3 7.AO.229.2023.DOC
rejected the Notice of Motion filed by the Appellants therein for restraining the
Defendant nos.1 and 2 its officers, servants, agents and persons claiming through
the Respondent No.1 from implementing, execution, enforcing or taking any
action of demolition of any nature whatsoever in respect of the suit notice dated 4 th
November 2022 issued under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
(MMC Act) and speaking order dated 2 nd March 2023 passed by the Respondent
No.2 Designated Officer and further disturbing the Appellants lawful use,
occupation and possession of the suit premises suit structure Shop No.2, situated at
Kaushal Niwas, Sarojani Naidu Road, village Mulund (W), Tal. Kurla BSD,
Mumbai.
2. On perusal of the impugned order dated 17 th March 2023 it is seen that
the Notice of Motion is pending adjudication before the Trial Court wherein the
Trial Court would have to deal with the reliefs therein after providing an
opportunity to the parties and on forming a prima facie view on perusal of the
pleadings. The impugned order is an order rejecting ad-interim relief and therefore
without opining anything on merits or giving any prima facie imprimatur of this
Court, it would be in the interest of justice if the learned Trial Court is directed by
this Court to decide upon the Notice of Motion/Interim Application seeking
interim relief as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three
weeks from today. If the said order 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.
M.S.Thatte
3 of 3 7.AO.229.2023.DOC
3. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (`MCGM’) is at liberty
to file affidavit-in-reply before the Trial Court within two weeks from today. The
Applicant in Interim Application No.4521 of 2024 is also at liberty to take out
appropriate proceedings for intervention before the Trial Court before the Notice
of Motion is heard. No adjournment shall be sought by either of the parties at the
time of Notice of Motion. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.
4. Ad-interim relief granted by this Court by its earlier order dated 30 th
March 2023 shall continue to operate till the Notice of Motion is heard, which is
scheduled after three weeks from today.
5. The Appeal from Order is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending
Interim Applications do not survive and stand disposed of.
(AARTI SATHE, J.)
M.S.Thatte
Checking your session…