Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sandesh Sonu Gawalkar, filed a civil appeal against an order dated 24 June 2022 passed by the City Civil Court, which refused to grant an ad-interim injunction against a demolition notice issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988. The appellant claimed ownership and possession of a suit structure at Worli Koliwada, Mumbai, and alleged that he had carried out only tenantable repairs. The MCGM issued a notice alleging unlawful construction. The trial court declined interim relief, leading to the appeal. The High Court examined the facts and found that the trial court had not properly considered the appellant's prima facie case, balance of convenience, and the likelihood of irreparable loss. The High Court held that the appellant had made out a strong prima facie case for grant of injunction, as the notice did not specify the exact nature of the alleged unlawful work, and the appellant's claim of ownership and possession was supported by documents. The balance of convenience was in favor of granting injunction to prevent demolition pending suit, as the respondent could be compensated by damages if the suit failed. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the trial court's order, and directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit structure until the disposal of the suit. The court also directed the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ad-interim Injunction - Prima Facie Case - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The trial court refused ad-interim relief against demolition notice under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988, without considering the appellant's claim of ownership and possession. The High Court held that the trial court failed to apply the correct legal principles and that the appellant had made out a prima facie case for grant of injunction. (Paras 1-10) B) Municipal Law - Demolition Notice - Section 354A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988 - The notice alleged unlawful construction, but the appellant claimed tenantable repairs. The High Court noted that the trial court did not examine the nature of the work or the appellant's title. The balance of convenience was in favor of granting injunction to prevent irreparable loss. (Paras 2-10) C) Civil Procedure - Balance of Convenience - Irreparable Loss - The High Court found that the appellant would suffer irreparable loss if the structure was demolished pending suit, and the respondent could be compensated by damages. The court directed status quo to be maintained. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to grant ad-interim injunction against demolition notice under Section 354A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1988, pending disposal of the suit.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Order dated 24 June 2022 passed by the City Civil Court is set aside. The parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the suit structure until disposal of the suit. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Section 354A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act
- 1988
- Ad-interim injunction
- Prima facie case
- Balance of convenience
- Irreparable loss
- Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC
