1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO.9710 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.9711 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.884 OF 2010 IN B.C.C.C.L.C. SUIT NO.436 OF 2010 Mrs. Nilofer R. Shaikh ...Appellant. v. M.C.G.M. ...Respondent. Mr. Omar K. Shaikh, adv. For the Appellant. Smt.K.K.Soran, For the Respondent/BMC. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 13, 2010 P.C. 1 The learned counsel for the appellant makes a statement that office objections shall be removed during a day. Office shall register the appeal as well as civil application. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. The appellant had filed suit no.436/10 challenging a notice under Section 351 issued by the Municipal Corporation and therein he had also taken out notice of motion no.884/2010. In that notice of motion ad-interim order of status- quo was passed on 26.2.2010. The impugned order shows that on 5.4.2010 said notice of motion was not on the board, however, the 2 learned Judge took the matter on board in view of the fax message and copies of an order passed by the High Court in Contempt Petition No. 25/10 in writ petition no.215/09 wherein the High Court had directed the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate steps to remove unauthorised structures on the land by following due process of law. Having taken the matter on board, without intimation to and hearing the plaintiff, the trial Court vacated the ad-interim order of status-quo. As the appellant had already filed a suit challenging that notice and there was ad-interim order of status-quo pending the notice of motion, it was necessary for the trial Court to inform the plaintiff about the date when the matter was to be taken up. The ad-interim order of the status-quo could not have been vacated without intimation and without hearing the plaintiff. Manner in which the impugned order vacating status-quo was passed was highly objectionable. As the notice of motion is still pending, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 5.4.2010 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is hereby directed to hear the parties and to decide the notice of motion on its own merits on or before 29th April, 2010 as directed by the High Court in Contempt Petition No. 25/10. Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 16th April, 2010. 3 3 Appeal as well as Civil Application stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI 4 APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO.9707 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.9708 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.883 OF 2010 IN B.C.C.C.L.C. SUIT NO.439 OF 2010 Taslim K. Sayed ...Appellant. v. M.C.G.M. ...Respondent. Mr. Omar K. Shaikh, adv. For the Appellant. Smt.K.K.Soran, For the Respondent/BMC. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 13, 2010 P.C. 1 The learned counsel for the appellant makes a statement that office objections shall be removed during a day. Office shall register the appeal as well as civil application. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. The appellant had filed suit no.439/10 challenging a notice under Section 351 issued by the Municipal Corporation and therein he had also taken out notice of motion no.883/2010. In that notice of motion ad-interim order of status- quo was passed on 26.2.2010. The impugned order shows that on 5.4.2010 said notice of motion was not on the board, however, the 5 learned Judge took the matter on board in view of the fax message and copies of an order passed by the High Court in Contempt Petition No. 25/10 in writ petition no.215/09 wherein the High Court had directed the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate steps to remove unauthorised structures on the land by following due process of law. Having taken the matter on board, without intimation to and hearing the plaintiff, the trial Court vacated the ad-interim order of status-quo. As the appellant had already filed a suit challenging that notice and there was ad-interim order of status-quo pending the notice of motion, it was necessary for the trial Court to inform the plaintiff about the date when the matter was to be taken up. The ad-interim order of the status-quo could not have been vacated without intimation and without hearing the plaintiff. Manner in which the impugned order vacating status-quo was passed was highly objectionable. As the notice of motion is still pending, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 5.4.2010 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is hereby directed to hear the parties and to decide the notice of motion on its own merits on or before 29th April, 2010 as directed by the High Court in Contempt Petition No. 25/10. Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 16th April, 2010. 6 3 Appeal as well as Civil Application stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO.9704 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.9705 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.886 OF 2010 IN B.C.C.C.L.C. SUIT NO.437 OF 2010 Salimuddin M. Sayed ...Appellant. v. M.C.G.M. ...Respondent. Mr. Omar K. Shaikh, adv. For the Appellant. Smt.K.K.Soran, For the Respondent/BMC. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 13, 2010 P.C. 1 The learned counsel for the appellant makes a statement that office objections shall be removed during a day. Office shall register the appeal as well as civil application. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. The appellant had filed suit no.437/10 challenging a notice under Section 351 issued by the Municipal Corporation and therein he had also taken out notice of motion no.886/2010. In that notice of motion ad-interim order of status- quo was passed on 26.2.2010. The impugned order shows that on 8 5.4.2010 said notice of motion was not on the board, however, the learned Judge took the matter on board in view of the fax message and copies of an order passed by the High Court in Contempt Petition No. 25/10 in writ petition no.215/09 wherein the High Court had directed the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate steps to remove unauthorised structures on the land by following due process of law. Having taken the matter on board, without intimation to and hearing the plaintiff, the trial Court vacated the ad-interim order of status-quo. As the appellant had already filed a suit challenging that notice and there was ad-interim order of status-quo pending the notice of motion, it was necessary for the trial Court to inform the plaintiff about the date when the matter was to be taken up. The ad-interim order of the status-quo could not have been vacated without intimation and without hearing the plaintiff. Manner in which the impugned order vacating status-quo was passed was highly objectionable. As the notice of motion is still pending, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 5.4.2010 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is hereby directed to hear the parties and to decide the notice of motion on its own merits on or before 29th April, 2010 as directed by the High Court in Contempt Petition No. 25/10. Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 16th April, 2010. 9 3 Appeal as well as Civil Application stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO.9701 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.9702 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.887 OF 2010 IN B.C.C.C.L.C. SUIT NO.440 OF 2010 Nafees I. Shaikh & Anr. ...Appellants. v. M.C.G.M. ...Respondent. Mr. Omar K. Shaikh, adv. For the Appellant. Smt.K.K.Soran, For the Respondent/BMC. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 13, 2010 P.C. 1 The learned counsel for the appellant makes a statement that office objections shall be removed during a day. Office shall register the appeal as well as civil application. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. The appellant had filed suit no.440/10 challenging a notice under Section 351 issued by the Municipal Corporation and therein he had also taken out notice of motion no.887/2010. In that notice of motion ad-interim order of status- quo was passed on 26.2.2010. The impugned order shows that on 5.4.2010 said notice of motion was not on the board, however, the 11 learned Judge took the matter on board in view of the fax message and copies of an order passed by the High Court in Contempt Petition No. 25/10 in writ petition no.215/09 wherein the High Court had directed the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate steps to remove unauthorised structures on the land by following due process of law. Having taken the matter on board, without intimation to and hearing the plaintiff, the trial Court vacated the ad-interim order of status-quo. As the appellant had already filed a suit challenging that notice and there was ad-interim order of status-quo pending the notice of motion, it was necessary for the trial Court to inform the plaintiff about the date when the matter was to be taken up. The ad-interim order of the status-quo could not have been vacated without intimation and without hearing the plaintiff. Manner in which the impugned order vacating status-quo was passed was highly objectionable. As the notice of motion is still pending, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 5.4.2010 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is hereby directed to hear the parties and to decide the notice of motion on its own merits on or before 29th April, 2010 as directed by the High Court in Contempt Petition No.25/10. Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 16th April, 2010. 12 3 Appeal as well as Civil Application stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) 13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO.9697 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO.9698 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.885 OF 2010 IN B.C.C.C.L.C. SUIT NO.438 OF 2010 Kalimuddin M. Sayed ...Appellant. v. M.C.G.M. ...Respondent. Mr. Omar K. Shaikh, adv. For the Appellant. Smt.K.K.Soran, For the Respondent/BMC. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : APRIL 13, 2010 P.C. 1 The learned counsel for the appellant makes a statement that office objections shall be removed during a day. Office shall register the appeal as well as civil application. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. The appellant had filed suit no.438/10 challenging a notice under Section 351 issued by the Municipal Corporation and therein he had also taken out notice of motion no.885/2010. In that notice of motion ad-interim order of status- quo was passed on 26.2.2010. The impugned order shows that on 14 5.4.2010 said notice of motion was not on the board, however, the learned Judge took the matter on board in view of the fax message and copies of an order passed by the High Court in Contempt Petition No. 25/10 in writ petition no.215/09 wherein the High Court had directed the Municipal Corporation to take appropriate steps to remove unauthorised structures on the land by following due process of law. Having taken the matter on board, without intimation to and hearing the plaintiff, the trial Court vacated the ad-interim order of status-quo. As the appellant had already filed a suit challenging that notice and there was ad-interim order of status-quo pending the notice of motion, it was necessary for the trial Court to inform the plaintiff about the date when the matter was to be taken up. The ad-interim order of the status-quo could not have been vacated without intimation and without hearing the plaintiff. Manner in which the impugned order vacating status-quo was passed was highly objectionable. As the notice of motion is still pending, with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 5.4.2010 is hereby set aside. The trial Court is hereby directed to hear the parties and to decide the notice of motion on its own merits on or before 29th April, 2010 as directed by the High Court in Contempt Petition No. 25/10. Parties shall appear before the trial Court on 16th April, 2010. 15 3 Appeal as well as Civil Application stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)