HARSH ADA H. SAWANT (P.A.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO.6313 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.6314 OF 2026 Hemchandra Dattatreya Shinde and Ors. Appellants .. (Org. Plaintiffs)

Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Respondents Anr. .. (Org. Defendants)

WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST.) NO.6316 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (ST.) NO.6317 OF 2026 Bhupesh Vishnu Bhagat and Ors. Appellants .. (Org. Plaintiffs)

Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Respondents Anr. .. (Org. Defendants)

....................

 Mr. Pradeep Thorat a/w. Mr. Shailesh Pal, Advocates i/by Mr. Vijay Shukla for Appellants.

...................

CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

DATE : MARCH 05, 2026 P.C . :

1. Not on Board. Mentioned by way of filing praecipe dated

05.03.2026. Perused the praecipe.

2. Heard Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate for Appellants.

3. By virtue of the impugned orders passed below Exhibit-5 in the Notice of Motion Nos.711 of 2026 and 712 of 2026 filed by Plaintiffs is rejected yesterday i.e. 04.03.2026. The reasoned speaking order is not available. The impugned action proceeds against Plaintiffs’

suit structure which is a chawl, comprising of 13 rooms.

4. Mr. Thorat, learned Advocate for Plaintiffs – Appellants before me would submit that appended at page No.59 to Appeal from Order (Stamp) No.6316 of 2026 is the assessment bill pertaining to the year 1982 whereas there is other documentary evidence showing existence of the structure as far back as in the year 1982 which prima facie goes to show that the suit structure was in existence for the past more than 4 decades.

5. Considering the aforesaid prima facie evidence and exigency mentioned by Mr. Thorat that there is apprehension expressed by Plaintiffs – Appellants that demolition may be perpetrated any time since police protection has been sought, the impugned order stands stayed.

6. Needless to state that once copy of the reasoned speaking orders is available to Appellants, the same shall be placed on record by way of an appropriate amendment. Leave to amend to that extent and add additional grounds and place the reasoned copy of the order by amendment is granted to Appellants. Necessary amendment is permitted to be carried out within a period of one week after the said reasoned copy is uploaded by the learned Trial Court. Reverification stands dispensed with.

7. In view of the above, impugned orders dated 04.03.2026 stands stayed.

8. No coercive steps in furtherance of impugned notices dated 15.04.2025 under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and impugned orders dated 13.12.2025 shall be taken by the Corporation.

9. No coercive steps in furtherance of the aforesaid notice and order passed by the Designated Officer shall be taken against the Plaintiffs by Corporation until present Appeal from Orders are heard for admission.

10. In view of the above, issue notice to Respondents.

11. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court’s notice, Appellants /Applicants are directed to serve the Respondents a copy of this order, copy of amended Interim Applications and Appeals from Orders forthwith and inform about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of service and file appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof thereof.

12. Respondents shall filed Affidavit-in-Reply within a period of four weeks from today. Affidavit-in-Rejoinder, if any to be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

13. Stand over to 16^th April 2026.

14. Praecipe is disposed.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]

H. H. SAWANT Digitally signed HARSHADA by HARSHADA HANUMANT H SA A W N A U N M T ANT SAWANT Date: 2026.03.05