Dhanista Builders And Developers ... vs The Municipal Commissioner ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 10863 Bom

2023:BHC-AS:31640

                                                                                    917 rpa 3 of 2023.doc

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 REVIEW PETITION NO.3 OF 2023
                                             IN
                              APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.245 OF 2023

            Dhanista Builders and Developers                        ...         Petitioner
                  versus
            The Municipal Commissioner and Ors.                     ...         Respondents

            Dr. Uday Warunjikar with Mr. Kiran Kulkarni, Ms. Neha Bachim, Ms. Shreya Gharat,
            Ms. Srushti Malushte i/by Kulkarni and Associates, for Petitioner.
            Mr. Narendra V. Walawalkar, Sr. Advocate with Mrs. Smita Tondwalkar, for
            Respondents.

                                 CORAM:        N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                 DATE :        19 OCTOBER 2023

            P.C.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Perused the Review Petition.

3. The substance of the submissions of Mr. Warunjikar is that clauses (iii)

and (iv) of the operative portion of the judgment and order dated 3 October 2023

cause prejudice to the Appellant-Petitioner as the Appellant-Petitioner would be

saddled with the liability to provide a set back area and there are other issues which

may crop up like provision for road etc., if the Municipal Corporation is permitted to

erect the building at the suit property of the same dimensions, before its demolition.

3. The Court has considered the issue of existence of the building at the

suit property even before the Appellant-Petitioner acquired the property from its

SSP 1/2 917 rpa 3 of 2023.doc

vendors. The grounds now sought to be urged have the propensity to expand the scope

of the appeal which was against an order refusing to grant temporary injunction.

4. I am not persuaded to hold that there is any error apparent on the face of

the record or other substantial ground which merits review of the order.

5. Hence, the Review Petition stands dismissed.

6. At this stage, Mr. Warunjikar seeks further stay to the order for a period

of two weeks.

7. Since this Court has already granted three weeks stay, time on 3 October

2023, to advance the cause of justice, the order passed by this Court is stayed for a

further period of one week.

                                                                               ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                         2/2



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 21/10/2023 12:41:16