JUDGMENT - A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.:---This appeal takes exception to the order passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay dated June 20, 2001 in Notice of Motion No. 450 of 2001 in S.C. Suit No. 3910 of 1996. By this order the trial Court has directed the appellant-Corporation to reconstruct the second floor and first floor (part) of the suit premises of building Nos. 15 and 16 Patel Mansion situated at Kurla (West), Mumbai 400 070, within three weeks from the date of the order. The Corporation was further directed to forthwith return the 287 iron bars to the respondent-plaintiff which were taken by them at the time of demolition, between August 2, 2000 to August 7, 2000; and in the event the same were not available and destroyed by the Corporation then the Corporation was directed to pay compensation for the same to the respondent-plaintiff within three weeks from the date of the order. This order is the subject matter of the present appeal. In so far as the latter direction is concerned, the stand taken on behalf of the Corporation before this Court is that they would return all those materials confiscated by the Corporation during the demolition as specified in the list prepared by the Ward Officer. According to Mr. Walawalkar there is serious dispute with regard to the number of items claimed by the respondent-plaintiff and in the list submitted by the authorities.

2. Briefly stated, the suit structure, being Building Nos. 15 and 16, Patel Mansion, Jivan Jyot, situated at Kurla (West), Mumbai 400 070, consisted of ground plus two floors. The respondent had applied for permission to carry out certain repairs, which permission was granted on November 29, 1995 in exercise of powers under section 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporations Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). While the said repair work was going on, it was noticed by the officers of the appellant-Corporation that the respondent was carrying out work in contravention of the permission granted by the Corporation, for which reason stop work notice was given under section 354-A of the Act. That notice was challenged by the respondent before the City Civil Court, Bombay, by way of Special Civil Suit No. 1430 of 1996. In the said suit the Court directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. Thereafter on March 19, 1996, the appellant-Corporation issued notice under section 351 of the Act calling upon the respondent to remove the structure specified in the said notice which, according to the corporation, was unauthorized and offending structure. On receipt of the said notice the respondent immediately rushed to the City Civil Court, Bombay by way of suit being Special Civil Suit No. 3910 of 1996. In the said suit the respondent took out the Notice of Motion praying for interim injunction during the pendency of the said suit. The City Civil Court on July 12, 1996 granted ad interim relief which was to enure till July 19, 1996. It is not in dispute that the said ad interim relief was subsequently continued by order dated October 4, 1996. However, it appears that the tenants of the respondent had reason to believe that the respondent after obtaining ad interim relief from the trial Court caused to misplace the papers pertaining to the suit filed before the trial Court as well as the original file of the Corporation and was taking advantage of the ad interim relief granted by the trial Court. The said tenant (hereinafter referred to as the Popat family) appears to have made this complaint about the said impropriety committed by the respondent not only to the City Civil Court, Bombay, but also to the Registrar of the High Court of Bombay. It appears that pursuant to the said complaint, the trial Court passed an order on June 9, 2000, which reads thus :

“Her Honour Judge Ms. Laxmi P. Rao: In pursuance of complaint lodged by Smt. Geeta Harshad Popat before the High Court at Bombay and further subsequent enquiries held in the matter regarding the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document