1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 9 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 9 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 9 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2146 OF 2007 IN BCCC SUIT NO. 2301 OF 2007 The Municipal Corporation of Greater bombay. ... Appellant (Orig. Defendant) Versus Mohd. Hanif Abdul Rehman & Ors. ... Respondents (Orig. Plaintiffs) Mr. Mrs. Geeta Joglekar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Anil C.Singh, Advocate, a/w Mr. R.O,.Pathak,Advocate for the responidents Nos. 1 to 10. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 21st January, 2008. DATE : 21st January, 2008. DATE : 21st January, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 2 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Perused the copies of the documents filed along with the affidavit. 2. To state in brief, the respondents, who are the original plaintiffs, claim to be small shop-keepers running their shops situated at CTS No.29/A, Behind Muslim Cemetery, Golibar, Santacruz (East), Mumbai 400 055. The respondents filed the suit contending that the shops of each of the ten plaintiffs admeasuring 3’ x 5’ are in existence since 1985. They have obtained necessary licence under the Shops and Establishment Act. According to them, in the floods of 2005, their shops and all the record about shops were damaged. Some officer of the Municipal Corporation approached the plaintiffs threatening that if they would not remove the structures within certain period, the shops would be demolished. With this contention, the plaintiffs filed suit with a prayer that the Municipal Corporation or its officers should not disturb their possession without following the due process of law. They also took out Notice of Motion No.2146 of 2007 seeking interim relief of the same nature. 3. The Notice of Motion was replied by an affidavit filed by Shri V.K.Singh, Senior Inspector, Shops & 3 Establishment, H/East Ward of the municipal Corporation. He denied that the said area was affected by the floods or that these establishments were in existence since 1985. According to him, the structures have been raised after 28.5.2007 because these structures were not in existence at the time of inspection on 27th and 28th May, 2007. According to him, the structures were raised after obtaining ad-interim injunction. 4. After that the plaintiffs-respondents produced the original damaged documents with the duplicates which were allegedly obtained from the Office of the Municipal Corporation. Shri V.K.Singh filed another affidavit contending that all these documents are forged and bogus. 5. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court made the ad-interim order absolute by grating prayer (a) of the Notice of Motion. Against that order, the Municipal Corporation has preferred the present Appeal. 6. There is a dispute whether these structures were in existence since 1985 or they came up after 28.5.2007. There is also dispute as to whether the documents which were produced by the plaintiffs before the trial Court in support of their claim are genuine or bogus. That can be 4 decided only after hearing the evidence which will be led by the parties. It may be noted that at the time of hearing of this Appeal, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents produced a bunch of documents showing that the renewal of registration of the establishments of each of the ten plaintiffs has been granted by the Municipal Corporation for the year 2007-2008. Even the certificates in Form D which bear the stamp of the Chief Inspector, Shops & Establishment and which also bear the rubber stamp of the signator but do not bear the date of issue. However, they refer to the receipt numbers and dates of the receipt numbers. The certificates are also accompanied with the receipts which indicate that the computerised receipts have been issued to each of the plaintiffs on 27.12.2007. 7. The learned Counsel for the Corporation however, reserves rights to verify the correctness and genuineness of these documents. 8. Taking into consideration the rival contentions and the fact that according to the plaintiffs, they have obtained the duplicate copies of the original shops and establishment licences as well as they have also received the latest renewed licences, in my considered opinion, it will not be desirable to interfere in the order of 5 temporary injunction granted by the trial Court. It is well settled that the grant of relief if temporary injunction is discretionary in nature and normally the appellate Court shall not interfere with the discretion exercised by the trial Court. It will be necessary that such matters should be heard and disposed of finally within certain period and at the same time, after trial, if it is found that the plaintiffs have relied upon and based their claim on the false and forged documents, the plaintiffs should not go scot free merely by dismissal of their claim, but they should also be prosecuted and punished for the crime committed by them. 9. Therefore, the Appeal stands dismissed. The trial Court shall hear and dispose of the suit expeditiously, as far as possible within six months from this day. In case the plaintiffs fail to prove their claim and in case the trial Court comes to the conclusion that the claims of the plaintiffs ere based on false and forged documents, the trial Court shall also direct the prosecution of the plaintiffs and may also propose for punishment for contempt of the Court. In case the affidavit of V.K.Singh is found to be false, the trial Court shall also take appropriate action against him. 10. As the Appeal itself is disposed of, the Civil 6 Application does not survive and stands disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)