Govt. Pleader

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.235 OF 2012 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.303 OF 2012 Gokuldas R. Pai .. Appellant Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Anr .. Respondents Mr. Abdul Rab,for the Appellant. Ms. M. R. Bhoir,for the RespondentMCGM. CORAM : J. H. BHATIA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 29, 2012 P.C. 1 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff claims to be in possession of the open plot bearing Survey No.39, City Survey No.1 at Link Road, Malad(W). On 21/03/2011, a letter was addressed by the Assistant Engineer(Bldg and Fact)P/North Ward to the plaintiff, wherein it was contended that there was a complaint received from one Jitendra Sutar that the plaintiff had placed three containers in the open plot and was using the said plot as a yard. By the said letter, he was directed to remove the containers within 24 hours, failing which they would be ata removed by the Municipal Corporation at his risk and costs. The plaintiff filed suit challenging the said letter and sought perpetual injunction restraining the Municipal Corporation from acting upon the same. By Notice of Motion, he sought temporary injunction of the same nature. The Notice of Motion was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff had no title over the property. 2 Learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant pointed out that about the said property, one Krishna Patil and others had filed S. C. Suit No. 2788 of 1983 against him and that suit was dismissed in default. The plaintiff had taken out Notice of Motion No. 747 of 2010 for setting aside the dismissal and for restoration of the suit to file. However, that Notice of Motion was also dismissed by order dated 06.05.2010. Learned counsel contends that in view of this, the plaintiff is in adverse possession over the suit property for the last about 30 years. It is not necessary to make any observation about his claim about adverse possession because the real owner of the property is not a party to the suit. Learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation could not explain under which provisions of law the letter dated 21.03.2011 was issued by the Assistant Engineer to the plaintiff. She concedes that it was not a notice issued by the Municipal Corporation under any provisions of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The Corporation does not claim :3: 235.12.ao title over the property. It is not clear who is Jitendra Sutar, who had made a complaint to the Assistant Engineer about parking of the said containers on that plot. It is not clear whether the Municipal Corporation has any right to issue such letter in respect of certain private property, particularly, when there is no allegation of any unlawful construction. Therefore, the said letter, prima facie, appears to be unauthorized, but it certainly gives a threat and creates apprehension in the mind of the plaintiff that he may be dispossessed without following due process of law. Therefore, it is necessary to give him some protection pending the suit. 3 In view of the above, the impugned order stands set aside. The Notice of Motion is allowed. The respondents are hereby restrained from taking any action against the plaintiff in respect of the suit property without following due process of law pending the suit. 4 As the appeal itself is finally disposed of, civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J. H. BHATIA,J.)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 651 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1992 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra & Anr..... Applicants. Versus Devidas Gangaram Gavhane & Ors...... Respondents. Mr. K.K.Tated, AGP for the Applicants. None for the Respondents. CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. DATED : 14TH AUGUST, 2007. P.C.: Issue Court notice to the respondents, returnable on 26th September, 2007. In addition to the other modes of service, liberty to serve by Registered Post A. D. as well as humdast granted. Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD,J.

Order - Status 2: KJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (ST) NO.16055 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4870 OF 2011 Chare Education Society & Anr. )....Petitioners V/s. Abasaheb Suryavanshi & Ors. )....Respondents Mr.S.G.Kudle for the petitioners. CORAM : S.A.BOBDE & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. D ATE : 29th JUNE, 2012. P.C. :- 1 Issue notice to the respondents returnable on 13.7.2012. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J) (S.A.BOBDE,J)

Order - Status 7: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION 249/2012 IN W.P.4870/2011 Chare Education Society & Anr. Petitioners Vs. Abasaheb Suryavanshi & Ors. Respondents Mr.S.G.Kudale for petitioners Mr.Vijay Killedar for Res.3 Mr.A.I.Patel,AGP for Res.4 CORAM- S.A.BOBDE AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE- 1st AUGUST,2012. P.C. According to Mr.Kudale respondent nos.1 and 2 have been served on 13/7/2012, however, none appears. In the circumstances the respondents are directed to remain personally present in the Court on 16/8/2012. Copy of this order shall be served upon the respondents by the petitioner by Humdust. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) (S.A.Bobde,J.) srs

Order - Status 12: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.249 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4870 OF 2011 Chare Education Society and another … Petitioners Vs. Abasaheb Suryavanshi & others … Respondents Mr. S. G. Kudle for Petitioners. Mr. Rupesh K. Bobade for Contempnor Nos.1 and 2. Ms S. S. Bhende, AGP for Respondent No.4. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 P.C.: It is surprising that respondent Nos.1 and 2 - contempnors are not present in the Court inspite of service of the notice from this Court. They are directed to remain present on 3rd October 2012. Stand over to 3rd October 2012. (R. G. KETKAR, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)

Order - Status 14: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.249 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4870 OF 2011 Chare Education Society and another … Petitioners Vs. Abasaheb Suryavanshi and others … Respondents Mr. S. G. Kudle for Petitioners. Mr. Rupesh Bobade for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Vijay Killedar for Respondent No.3. Mr. C. R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondent No.4. CORAM : V. M. KANADE & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 3RD OCTOBER, 2012 P.C.: Despite two orders being passed by this Court directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to remain present, today respondent No.1 has remained absent. Mr. Bobade, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 seeks one last chance. As and by way of last chance, stand over to 10th October 012. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to remain present on the next date of hearing, failing which, appropriate steps will be taken. (R. G. KETKAR, J.) (V. M. KANADE, J.)

Order - Status 19: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.249 OF 2012 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4870 OF 2011 Chare Education Society & Anr. …Petitioners V/s. Abasaheb Suryavanshi & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.S.G. Kudle for the Petitioners. Mr.A.I. Patel, A.G.P. for the State - Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Vijay Killedar for Respondent No.3. Mr.Rupesh K. Bobde for Respondent No.4. Mr.Amit Shete for Respondent No.5. CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2013. P.C. :- In view of the order passed in Writ Petition No.4870 of 2011, there is no case for contempt. There is nothing to indicate that the school was not shifted to the location indicated in the order dated 22.02.2012. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (S.J. VAZIFDAR, J.)