1 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 9633 OF 2009 Kalpanath M. Chowdhary .. Petitioner V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Shrishail Sakhare for the petitioner. Mr. A.N. Narula for respondent no.3. Mr. S.D. Rayrikar, A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 6TH JULY 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 16 July 2009 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai rejecting the prayer for amendment and also dismissing the petitioner’s suit. 3. Before the City Civil Court, it was contended that the suit had become infructuous on account of the order of the Supreme Court dated 28 April 2006 passed in Contempt Petition No.417-418 of 2004. The petitioner’s brother was in possession of the suit 2 property. In pursuance of a rehabilitation scheme under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 2003 (for short “the Slum Act”), an order for eviction was passed against the petitioner’s brother. That order was challenged by the petitioner’s brother in the High Court which dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner’s brother filed a S.L.P. in the Supreme Court which was also dismissed. However, on an undertaking furnished by the petitioner’s brother to vacate the suit premises time was granted to him to hand over possession of the suit premises to the present respondent no.3 on or before 15 December 2003. The petitioner’s brother failed to comply with the undertaking but instead inducted the petitioner in possession of the suit premises. Thereafter contempt petition, being Contempt Petition No.417-418 of 2004, was filed by the respondent no.3 in the Supreme Court. In pursuance of a direction issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the petitioner was arrested and detained at Dindoshi Police Station. In the said contempt petition, on 28 April 2006 the Supreme Court passed the following order: “ The petitioner’s Manager Shri K.L. Gupta or his advocate shall visit the Dindoshi Police Station, Malad 3 (E) at Mumbai on 29.4.2006, where Kalpanath Choudhary has been lodged in custody. The officer-in- charge of the police station shall take Kalpanath Choudhary with the petitioner’s representative to the property in question which shall be identified by the petitioner’s representative. Kalpanath Choudhary shall deliver possession of the property to the petitioner’s representative. After possession is delivered the police shall release him from custody.” In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner personally went to the suit premises and handed over the possession thereof to the respondent no.3. After receipt of possession, the suit premises have been demolished by the respondent no.3 and redevelopment has been commenced. 4. At the time of handing over possession of the suit premises, the present suit was pending in which the petitioner has claimed injunction restraining the respondents from disturbing his possession. Since the petitioner has handed over possession of the suit premises in pursuance of the order of the Supreme Court, and 4 thereafter the suit premises have been demolished for the purpose of redevelopment in accordance with the scheme sanctioned under the Slums Act, the suit for injunction became infructuous. I therefore see no error in the impugned order passed by the trial court disposing of the suit as infructuous. The writ petition is accordingly rejected summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)