Appellants lack legal standing for injunction against demolition as they suppressed prior litigation and proved non-entitlement to the unauthorized structures.

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Naphade, learned Advocate for Appellants in Appeal From Order No.247 of 2025 and Appeal From Order No.248 of 2025; Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate for Appellants in Appeal From Order Nos.226 of 2025 and 227 of 2025; Appeal From Order (St.) Nos.12987 of 2025; 12989 of 2025; 12992 of 2025 and 12996 of 2025; Mr. Tamboly, learned Advocate for Applicants / Intervenors in Interim Application (St.) Nos.14151 of 2025; 14154 of 2025; 14155 of 2025; 14156 of 2025; 14158 of 2025; 14160 of 2025, 14366 of 2025 and 14368 of 2025 and Ms. Pooja Khandeparkar, learned Advocate for Respondent – MCGM.

2. By consent of the parties, present group of Appeal From Orders alongwith Interim Applications are heard finally and decided by this common judgment. Facts are identical and whenever there is a variation, it is accordingly noted by the Court. This is a group of 8 Appeal From Orders filed by 8 individuals / Appellants. They are broadly divided into two groups. Appeal From Order Nos.247 of 2025 and 248 of 2025 are filed by one group whereas Appeal From Order Nos.226 of 2025 and 227 of 2025 and (St.) Nos.12987 of 2025; 12989 of 2025; 12992 of 2025 and 12996 of 2025 are filed by another group. In the first group, Mr. Naphade appears for 2 Appellants whereas in the second group Mr. Thorat appears for 6 Appellants.

3. There are 8 Intervention Applications filed by one Nemi Krishna Cooperative Housing Society and 8 Injunction Applications filed by their respective Appellants in their respective Appeal From Orders. Mr. Tamboly, learned Advocate appears for Nemi Krishna Co-operative Housing Society in all the matters. The principal contesting Respondent is the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, R/South Ward Office. Ms. Khandeparkar, learned Advocate appears on behalf of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for short ‘Corporation’) in all 8 matters whereas all learned Advocates on behalf of respective parties have addressed the Court at length and made their submissions.

4. Briefly stated challenge in all Appeal From Orders is with respect to dismissal of their individual / respective Notice of Motion filed by them seeking interim relief in the substantive Suits before the Trial Court.

5. In the first group of 2 matters, one Mr. Ashok Sambhaji Kasavkar has filed LC Suit No.2312 of 2024 alongwith Notice of Motion No.3671 of 2024 in the Trial Court seeking injunction. His wife Ms. Milan Ashok Kasavkar is the other Appellant.

6. There is a history to the case of all these 8 Appellants their structures before me dating back to as far back as 1998. One thing that is admitted by the parties is that the land on which the 8 structures of Appellants before me are situated / constructed belong to Nemi Krishna Co-operative Housing Society (for short ‘the Society’) who is Intervenor in the present proceedings. This Society is in the immediate vicinity of Kandivali Railway Station infact land / boundary of Society abuts Kandivali Railway Station. Once again all parties are ad idem on the fact that the southern portion of the Society land admeasuring 107 square meters is situated within close proximity of 150 meters from Platform No.1 of Kandivali Railway Station which is the land where the offending structures are standing / situated. Broadly when the matters are argued Mr. Naphade appearing for the first group of 2 Appellants fairly admits that their structures are the same structures covered in the previous round of