- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O.O.C.J. APPEAL NO.38 OF 2004 IN CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.223 OF 2001 IN EXECUTION APPLICATION NO.324 OF 1998 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1162 OF 1982 ... Anirudha Sitaram Singh ...Appellant v/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.A.S.Desai with Mr.R.S.Ghadge & Mr.Mahesh Londhe i/b Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Appellant. Mr.T.H.Puranik for Respondent No.1. Mr.K.V.Tembe for Respondent No.2. ... - 2 - CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED: 5TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C.: 1. Admitted facts are that the writ petition was filed seeking an order for demolition of the structure. Writ petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus against the Corporation for demolition of the unathorised structures situated on plot no.348 of the Town Planning Scheme of Mahim, which were shown in the plan at Exh.A to the Writ petition. To that writ petition admittedly the present Appellant was joined as a party. He chose not to appear before the court and contest that writ petition. The Court decided that writ petition by a reasoned order and granted it in terms of prayer clause (a) of that writ petition. An appeal was filed by the Appellant against the order of the learned single Judge. That appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Court by following order: - 3 - "Appeal dismissed. We agree with the conclusion of the Learned Trial Judge." Thus all findings recorded including operative order made by the learned single Judge stood confirmed by the Appellate Court in the Appeal filed by the Appellant himself. Obviously, therefore, no challenge before the executing court to the decree on merits is tenable. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant initially submitted that according to him the application filed for execution of the decree is barred by the law of limitation. Perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the Chamber summons, however, shows that nowhere it is stated that when the decree was drawn pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge. No where it is stated what is the date on which execution application was filed. It is also not stated what is the period of limitation provided by law. Obviously, therefore, in the absence of all these details the question of limitation could not have been decided by the learned single Judge. It was next contended that the writ - 4 - has been issued for demolition of the unauthorised structure and the structure of the Appellant is not unauthorised structure. 3. Perusal of the order of the learned single Judge shows that what has been done is that the writ has been issued in terms of prayer clause (a). Perusal of prayer clause (a) shows that the writ has been issued by this court directing the Respondent No.1-Corporation to demolish and remove the unauthorised structure situated on Plot No.348 of the Town Planning Scheme of Mahim and shown on the plan Exh.A with red and blue hatched lines and a red cross. Therefore, not only the court has directed demolition of the structures, but also indicated what are the unauthorised structures to be demolished. It is not the case of the Appellant that his structure was not covered by the red and blue hatched lines and a red cross on the plan at Exh.A to the writ petition. 4. In our opinion, the chamber summons was nothing but a poor attempt by the Appellant to delay and defeat the execution of the decree passed by this court, which was passed by this court after issuing - 5 - due notice to him and challenge to which at the hands of the Appellant before the Appellate Court failed. The Appeal has no substance. It is dismissed. The Appellant, however, is directed to pay Rs.15,000/- to the Corporation for abusing the process of court by adopting such dilatory tactics. 5. At this stage, a request is made on behalf of the Appellant to stay operation of this order. 6. By this order we have merely dismissed the appeal. No useful purpose will be served by staying operation of this order. The request is, therefore, rejected. 7. Then a prayer is made that the operation of the interim order should be continued. 9. Having found that the Appellant is abusing the process of the court, in our opinion, it will not be in the interest of justice to continue the interim order, which is in the discretion of the court. The request is rejected. - 6 - (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.A.SAYED, J.)