: 1 : 2408-11-Judgment=.sxw UJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2408 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5066 OF 2011 Shaikh Mohammed Fahim .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2409 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5068 OF 2011 Vijay R. Shelar .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2410 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5070 OF 2011 Veena Venktesh Koteshwari .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2411 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5072 OF 2011 Nitin Jayantilal Doshi .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents : 2 : 2408-11-Judgment=.sxw ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2412 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5073 OF 2011 Mrs. Kalpana Govind Sakpal .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2413 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5076 OF 2011 Nafees Hasan Kazmi .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2414 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5078 OF 2011 Suresh Vishwakarma .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2415 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5080 OF 2011 Imtiyaz Khan .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents : 3 : 2408-11-Judgment=.sxw ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2416 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5083 OF 2011 Nirmala Suresh Vishwakarma .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2417 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5085 OF 2011 Sarvar Usman Shaikh .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2418 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5087 OF 2011 Tukaram Patil .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2419 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5089 OF 2011 Jagdish Patil .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents : 4 : 2408-11-Judgment=.sxw ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2420 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5091 OF 2011 Dishad Godrej Pestonji .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2421 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5093 OF 2011 Saraswati M. Nigam .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2422 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5095 OF 2011 Ebrahim Ahmed Shaikh .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2423 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5097 OF 2011 Mohd. Usman Mohd Ibrahim .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents : 5 : 2408-11-Judgment=.sxw ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2424 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5099 OF 2011 Ibrahim Ahmed Shaikh .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ALONGWITH FIRST APPEAL NO. 2425 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5101 OF 2011 Shantaram Shelar .. Appellant V/s. M.C.G.M. and Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. Y.K. Tiwari with Mr. Deepak Deshmukh i/b Mukesh Pandey & associates for the appellant/s Mr. Vinod Mahadik for respondents ......... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J DATE : 14th DECEMBER,2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. These appeals are filed against the common Judgment and Order dated 29th September, 2011 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Greater Bombay. These appeals can be disposed of by this common Judgment. It is common ground that the respondent Municipal : 6 : 2408-11-Judgment=.sxw Corporation issued notices under Section 314 to all the appellants directing them to remove their structures on the ground that the land is required for road widening etc. It is also the case of the Corporation that all these structures were erected after 1995 and therefore they cannot be protected and the owners of such structures are not entitled to alternate accommodation also. The appellants filed their individual suits claiming individually that they are entitled to protection because they have their structures since prior to 1995. They therefore challenged the notices issued under Section 314 of the B.M.C. Act. The BMC opposed the suits. After recording issues and evidence, the learned Judge of the trial Court delivered the impugned judgment dismissing the suits. 2. The learned Judge of the lower Court recorded evidence of all the appellants separately and took on record their individual documents separately. But he delivered a common judgment. He held that the appellants could not prove their case that their structures are in existence since prior to dictum line of 1995. 3. On perusal of the judgment, it is found that the learned Judge of the lower Court did not discuss individual cases of the appellants separately. : 7 : 2408-11-Judgment=.sxw After the issues were framed, the appellants had recorded their individual deposition and they were separately cross-examined. The learned Judge did not discussed the admissions which the appellants have given during the cross-examination. The learned Judge erroneously discussed the evidence as if it is given in one case. It was possible for the learned Judge to decide these cases by a common judgment but he ought to have discussed facts of each case separately. Had he adopted such method, he could have probably appreciated the evidence in each case more minutely and could have come to conclusions as to whether any of the appellants had any right of protection. The cases deserve remand. ORDER (i) The appeals are allowed. The common judgment and order is set aside. The cases are remanded back to the lower Court. The learned Judge of the lower Court shall now examine and decide each case separately on the basis of the evidence that has already come on record. Earlier protection given to the appellants shall continue till disposal of the suits. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)