1 (50)NMS.2919.10-S.2715.10.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2919 OF 2010 IN SUIT NO. 2715 OF 2010 Naglaxmi Mariappan Pillai ...Plaintiff Vs. Girdharilal Ramkumar Sharma & Ors. ...Defendants Ms. Purnima G. Bhatia, Advocate for Plaintiff Mr. H.C. Pimple, Advocate for Defendants 6 & 7 CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 4TH OCTOBER, 2011 P.C. : 1. The Plaintiff claims to be a photopass holder in respect of the suit plot of land. The photopass is not produced. The application for photopass made by the Plaintiff shows No.1850158. The identity card issued by Defendants 6 & 7 shows the name and address of the Plaintiff against one hut. The dimensions of the hut are not shown in the identitity card. They would be shown only in the photopass which is not produced. 2. The Plaintiff has applied for and obtained a certificate of registration under the Shops and Establishment Act 1948. This shows her postal address at G/II/26, BMC Colony, A.K. Vaidya Marg, Near Hanuman Mandir, Malad(E), Mumbai-400065. 3. Defendants 1 to 5 are stated to be trespassers in the Plaintiff’s structure. They encroached upon the Plaintiff’s structure. The encroachment has been removed. In fact the entire structure is demolished. 2 (50)NMS.2919.10-S.2715.10.sxw 4. Certain correspondence of Defendants 6 and 7 show a hut being unauthorisedly constructed and therefore, removed. If that is so, the Plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief of reconstruction with or without appointment of the Court Receiver. 5. However some structure of the Plaintiff is shown. It would be for the Plaintiff to apply by Defendants 6 and 7 as per the procedure established by law in respect of construction of any structure. 6. The Plaintiff has applied for reliefs of compensation, mesne profits etc., against Defendants 1 to 5. These reliefs cannot be granted and are not even pressed. The Plaintiff claims the relief of appointment of Court Receiver and for the Plaintiff to be put in possession of the suit plot of land as agent of the Court Receiver. This relief is not against Defendants 1 to 5. This relief cannot be granted against Defendants 6 and 7 unless the Plaintiff shows the photopass issued to the Plaintiff. Hence the relief of appointment of Court Receiver is refused. Since the structure is removed the relief of appointment of Architect to make a report also does not survive and since Defendants 1 to 5 have been removed the injunction against them also need not be granted. Consequently, the Notice of Motion is dismissed. 7. The Plaintiff may make such application as she is advised to Defendants 6 and 7 based upon documentary evidence who shall consider it inaccordance with law. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)