AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2482 of 2007 · Bombay High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- R V MORE
Outcome
Disposed of
The writ petition stands disposed of with no order
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that without going into the merits of the matter, the petition can be disposed of by directing the lower appellate Court to dispose of the petitioner's appeal expeditiously and extending protection granted by…
Judgment
Heard Mr. Kanugo, learned counsel petitioner and Mr. Chhabra, learned counsel respondents.
The petitioner filed Regular Civil Suit No. 62/2004 for declaration that notice dated 23.05.2003 issued by the respondents is illegal and against the public policy and for consequent relief to set aside the same. The petitioner also claimed permanent injunction restraining the respondents from acting upon the said notice. The suit notice was issued by the respondents under the provisions of Section 286 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 read with Section 52 of the Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936. The petitioner also filed application for temporary injunction at Exh.5. The trial 2 Court, by order dated 16.06.2006 granted interim injunction in favour of the petitioner, thereby the respondents were temporarily restrained from proceeding with the action of demolition of any portion of the suit house till decision of the suit. The suit ultimately was dismissed on 26.09.2006 and, thereafter, the petitioner preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 535/2006 before the District Judge, Nagpur. The petitioner also filed application for temporary injunction in terms of injunction sought in the trial Court during pendency and final disposal of the appeal. The leaned District Judge-4 Nagpur by the order impugned in the present petition rejected the petitioner's application for temporary injunction and, thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition. This Court by order dated
04.08.2007 issued notice to the respondents and in the meanwhile directed the parties to maintain status quo.
It is not disputed that the protection by way of temporary injunction granted by the trial Court on 3
16.06.2006 was in operation till the disposal of the suit and, thereafter, though the appellate Court refused to grant protection to the petitioner, this Court by granting order of status quo protected the petitioner's construction. The petitioner also submitted that he has already filed application for regularisation of his premises in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments (Regularisation, Upgradation and Control), Act 2001. The petitioner's appeal is pending before the District Court.
Operative part
In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that without going into the merits of the matter, the petition can be disposed of by directing the lower appellate Court to dispose of the petitioner's appeal expeditiously and extending protection granted by this Court on 04.08.2007 during pendency and final disposal of the appeal. I, therefore, dispose of the petition by passing the following order:-
(i) The learned District Judge-4, Nagpur is directed to hear and dispose of the petitioner's appeal being Regular 4 Civil Appeal No. 535/2006 as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order.
(ii) During the pendency and final disposal of the petitioner's appeal before the lower appellate Court, the interim order passed by this Court in the present Writ Petition on 04.08.2007 shall remain in operation.
(iii) The learned counsel for the respective parties agree that they will cooperate the lower appellate Court for early disposal of the appeal and they will not seek any unnecessary adjournments.
(iv) Needless to mention that the appellate Court shall dispose of the petitioner's appeal on merits and without being influenced by the order impugned in the present petition.
(v) The writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. kahale JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The writ petition stands disposed of with no order
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 — s. 286; Nagpur Improvement Trust Act, 1936 — s. 52.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.