ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 6310 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 6310 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 6310 OF 2007 Mr.Abdul Quayyum Abdul Quddus. ...Petitioner Vs. Mumbai Municipal Corp. of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.S.D.Patil for the Petitioner. Mr.T.V.Ganesh for Respondent No.2. CORAM CORAM CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. : R.V.MORE, J. DATED DATED DATED : 24th July, 2008 : 24th July, 2008 : 24th July, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By the impugned order passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai, the petitioner’s Notice of Motion No.1780/2006 in L.C. Suit No.1444/2006 taken out for taking necessary action of contempt of Courts against Respondent No.2 as well as permission to reconstruct the demolition structure came to be rejected. 3. The Petitioner filed the L.C.Suit No.1444/2006 challenging the order dated 25/03/2006 passed by the Respondent No.1 for demolition of suit premises. On ( 2 ) 31/03/2006 the Trial Court was pleased to grant interim relief. However, the interim relief granted on 31/03/2006 was stayed by the City Civil Court on 27/04/2006 at the instance of Respondent No.3 in Chamber Summons No.540/2006 taken out for adding him as a party Defendant. Immediately on the following day i.e. on 28/04/2006 the suit premises came be to demolished and therefore, the Petitioner constrained to take out the Notice of Motion No. 1780/2006 for the relief as mentioned above. 4. The City Civil Court held that since the suit premises came to be demolished on 28/04/2006 on which day, interim relief in petitioner’s favour was not in operative, no action under the Contempt of Courts against the Respondent No.2 can be initiated. I do not see any error, illegality in the impugned order so as to enable me to interfere in my jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. The Petitioner, by the aforesaid Notice of Motion, asked for permission to reconstruct the demolition structure. So far as this relief is concerned, there is absolutely no discussion in the impugned order. Mr.Patil the learned counsel appearing for the ( 3 ) Petitioner submits that the order dated 27/04/2006 passed by the City Civil Court, Mumbai in Chamber Summons bearing No.540/2006 was subsequently quashed and set aside by this Court on 16/07/2008 in A.O. No.164/2008. In that view of the matter I am of the view that the interest of justice will serve if the petitioner is given liberty to apply afresh to the City Civil Court, Mumbai for the relief of reconstruction of the demolition structure. 6. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I dispose of the petition by passing the following order:- O R D E R R D E R R D E R 1. The Writ Petition is dismissed with costs. 2. The Petitioner however, is at liberty to apply afresh to the City Civil Court for reconstruction of demolition of structure which was demolished by Respondent No.2 on 28/04/2006. ( 4 ) ‘ ( R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.) R. V. MORE, J.)