##PAGE1##

Megha 19_wp_2978_2020 wi_ia_2025.docx

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.2978 OF 2020

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1128 OF 2025

IN

WRIT PETITION NO.2978 OF 2020

Smt. Kamal Vilas Gaikwad ...Petitioner/Applicant

V/s.

Ashfak Noormohammed Ansari and

Anr. ...Respondents

______________

Ms. Anita Bhaktwani for the Petitioner/Applicant.

______________

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

DATED: 22 DECEMBER 2025.

P.C.:

1) Petition challenges order dated 18 July 2019 passed by the

Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Thane, dismissing Misc. Civil Appeal No.239

of 2017 and confirming the order dated 20 November 2017 passed by

the 7^th Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwandi on application at

Exhibit-5 filed in Regular Civil Suit No.774 of 2016.

2) I have heard Ms. Bhaktwani, the learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioner and have considered the submissions

canvassed by her. She would invite my attention to Interim Application

No.1128 of 2025 in support of her contention that the construction in

Page No. 1 of 3

22 December 2025

Megha 19_wp_2978_2020 wi_ia_2025.docx

question was demolished during pendency of the Suit and that the

Defendants are in the process of constructing another illegal structure

on the land in question. She submits that the Plaintiff has accordingly

submitted complaint dated 9 December 2024 to the Bhiwandi-

Nizampur City Municipal Corporation. She would therefore submit

that it is necessary to injunct the Defendants from undertaking any

construction on the land in question.

3) The Suit has been instituted by the Plaintiff challenging

Sale Deed dated 27 May 1975. The Suit appears to be instituted after a

period of 41 long years in the year 2016. The Application for

temporary injunction was rejected by the Trial Court by order dated 20

November 2017. During the pendency of the Misc. Civil Appeal before

the District Court, there was no interim relief operational in favour of

the Plaintiff. Even in the present Petition, no interim relief is granted in

favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner-Plaintiff is thus without any

injunction for the last 9 long years during pendency of the Suit. Even if

the contention of the Petitioner about demolition of construction by

the Municipal Corporation is taken into consideration, the demolition

would be on account of construction not in accordance with

sanctioned development permission. Said issue has no relevance to the

Petitioner’s claim of title in respect of the suit property.

4) I therefore, do not find any valid reason to interfere in the

impugned orders of the Trial Court and the lower Appellate Court.

Writ Petition is accordingly rejected.

Page No. 2 of 3

22 December 2025

Megha 19_wp_2978_2020 wi_ia_2025.docx

5) Needless to observe that the Suit shall be decided on its

own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made

in the present order. The Petitioner would be at liberty to file

appropriate application before the Trial Court in the event she believes

that the proposed construction on the plot is without securing

development permission.

6) With the disposal of the Writ Petition, nothing survives in

the Interim Application and the same stands disposed of.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Signed by: Megha S. Parab

Page No. 3 of 3

Designation: PA To Honourable Judge 22 December 2025

Date: 23/12/2025 13:12:47