JUDGMENT - R.M. LODHA, J.:---The aforesaid two appeals are directed against the order dated 31-11-1994/1-12-1994 passed by the Bombay City Civil Court on the Notice of Motion No. 4539 of 1994 and, therefore, these two appeals have been heard together and are disposed of by this common order.

2. Ahmedmia Gulam Mohuddin Ahmedji, the original plaintiff and respondent No. 1 in both the appeals filed a suit against the original defendant No. 1 Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (respondent No. 2 in A.O. No. 1528 of 1994 and respondent No. 2 in A.O. No. 39 of 1995) and original defendants Nos. 2 to 31, some of whom are appellants in A.O. No. 39 of 1995, and, respondents Nos. 2 to 21 in A.O. No. 1528 of 1994 praying therein that it be declared that the construction erected on suit property i.e. City Survey No. 1/358, Matunga Division, Bombay described in plan at Exhibit-D to the plaint is unauthorised, illegal and liable to be demolished. The plaintiff also claimed the relief that defendants Nos. 2 to 31 be directed by mandatory order to remove or pull-down the aforesaid unauthorised construction and defendant No. 1 be directed to initiate and pursue appropriate action against defendants Nos. 2 to 31 in respect of the aforesaid unauthorised construction. The plaintiff also prayed for decree of permanent injunction against defendants Nos. 2 to 31 that they be restrained from constructing any structure on the disputed land or to use the vacant land for commercial use or uses like conference, fair, jatra, etc. and that defendant No. 1 be restrained from regularising or issuing any permission or sanction in favour of defendants Nos. 2 to 31 for the unauthorised construction. The plaintiff also took out notice of motion in the said suit inter alia praying that by mandatory direction the defendants Nos. 2 to 31 be asked to remove or pull-down unauthorised construction and defendant No. 1 be directed to initiate and pursue appropriate action against defendant Nos. 2 to 31 in respect of unauthorised construction. The plaintiff also prayed for temporary injunction against the defendants Nos. 2 to 31 that they be restrained from constructing any structure and/or giving the vacant land for commercial use or uses like conference, fair, jatra, etc., and, defendant No. 1 be restrained from regularising or issuing any permission or sanction in favour of respondents Nos. 2 to 31 for the unauthorised construction. In support of notice of motion, plaintiff filed his affidavit.

3. Notice of motion was contested by the defendants and defendant No. 3 Sayed Akhtar Ali Sayed Asgar Ali, General Secretary of Bazam-a-Haq Committee filed his affidavit in reply for himself as well as for defendant No. 2 and defendants Nos. 4 to 20.

4. The trial Court by the impugned order dated 31-11-1994/1-12-1994 made the notice of motion absolute in terms of prayer-clauses (b), (c), (d) of the notice of motion.

5. The operative portion of the impugned order reads thus :---

"The Notice of Motion is made absolute in terms of prayers (b), (c) and (d). The first defendants shall issue notice in respect of the structures on the leased property belonging to defendants 21 to 31. Defendants 21 to 31 shall show cause to the said notice and have a right of hearing. The Deputy Municipal Commissioner of the first defendants shall pass a reasoned order in respect of the action initiated to complete the process of law. None of the defendants shall put up any further construction on the land now remaining vacant as shown in the photographs produced by the plaintiff. Any application for repair or regularisation of any of the structures shall be processed by the first defendants only after an application in that behalf is made to this Court and further directions obtained from the Court. NOC. 6 photographs produced by the plaintiff showing the present state of the leased premises are taken on record."

6. The facts undisputed need not be gone in details in view of the controversy raised in th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document