Bombay High Court
Mr. Jagdish Ghisusingh Purohit vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... on 17 November, 2025
501. FA 34-2023 (Prod).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2023
ANAND Jagdish Ghisusingh Purohit ..Appellant
SUDHAKAR Versus
SUDAME The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & anr. ..Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4077 OF 2017
Digitally signed WITH
by ANAND INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2004 OF 2025
SUDHAKAR
WITH
SUDAME
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 555 OF 2020
Date: 2025.11.18 IN
19:48:20 +0530 FIRST APPEAL NO. 34 OF 2023
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1168 OF 2025
Mrs. Kalpanadevi Govindsingh Parmar ..Appellant
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & anr. ..Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3663 OF 2025
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 54 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1168 OF 2025
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2017
Devanand Ramapati Maurya ..Appellant
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & anr. ..Respondents
Anand 1 of 5
::: Uploaded on - 18/11/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 18/11/2025 21:07:45 :::
501. FA 34-2023 (Prod).doc
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4076 OF 2017
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2007 OF 2025
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 473 OF 2017
WITH
FIRST APPEAL NO. 575 OF 2020
Sureshkumar Khemrajji Jain ..Appellant
Versus
The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & anr. ..Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4075 OF 2017
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1967 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 548 OF 2020
IN
FIRST APPEAL NO. 575 OF 2020
Mr. Virendra T. Dubey, Advocate, for the Appellant
Mr. Tushad Kakalia a/w. Mr. Uttam Rane, Advocates, for Respondent
Nos. 3 to 5
CORAM : RAJESH S. PATIL, J.
DATE : 17.11.2025
P. C.
1. Mentioned. Not on board. Taken on board.
2. The Appellant had filed a Suit in 2009 before the City Civil
Court, Bombay challenging the notice issued under Section 351 of the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 ("MMC Act"). Prior to the
filing of L. C. Suit No. 676 of 2009, the present Appellant had filed
Anand 2 of 5
501. FA 34-2023 (Prod).doc
L. C. Suit No. 3583 of 2007 challenging the same notice issued under
Section 351 of the MMC Act. By an Order dated 16.01.2009, earlier
Suit was disposed of granting permission to the Appellant to approach
the concerned authorities seeking regularization of the subject
structure.
3. However, it seems that the Appellant did not approach the
concerned department of the Municipal Corporation seeking
regularization of the subject structure. The Appellant, thereafter,
sought review of the Order dated 16.01.2009. By an Order dated
13.02.2009 passed in Review Petition No. 5 of 2009, the Appellant was
permitted to proceed against landlords of the land on which Suit
structure was situated. Ultimately, even the Suit against the landlord of
the Suit structure was dismissed by an Order dated 18.02.2011.
Thereafter, the Appellant preferred the second Suit, being L. C. Suit No.
676 of 2009 thereby challenging the notice issued under Section 351 of
the MMC Act and seeking certain directions against the Municipal
Corporation. Whilst the said Suit was pending before the City Civil
Court, Bombay, the Appellant preferred an Application seeking
regularization of the Suit premises.
4. The said second Suit was dismissed by an Order dated
15.06.2016 passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay. Being aggrieved by
Anand 3 of 5
501. FA 34-2023 (Prod).doc
the said Judgment passed by the City Civil Court, Bombay, the present
First Appeal has been filed by the Appellant.
5. During the pendency of the present First Appeal, regularization
Application filed by the Appellant was rejected by the Building
Proposal Department of the Municipal Corporation by an Order dated
01.08.2025.
6. From the record which is produced before me as per the regular
proposal status flow available on the Municipal Corporation website, it
appears that on 03.10.2018, the Appellant had submitted his proposal
for regularization. The said proposal appears to have been rejected.
7. None appears for the Municipal Corporation when the matters
are called out. Mr. Dubey submitted that Mr. Pradeep Patil is appearing
in the present proceeding for the MCGM.
8. In order to permit learned Counsel for the Bombay Municipal
Corporation to appear and make submissions, stand over to 25.11.2025
at 3.00 p. m.. If no one appears for the Corporation on the next date of
hearing, it would be presumed that the MCGM has no objection to
allow the First Appeal.
9. Ad-interim relief, if any, granted earlier to continue till the next
date of hearing.
Anand 4 of 5
501. FA 34-2023 (Prod).doc
10. Learned Counsel for the Appellant to serve a copy of this order
on the Law Officer of the MCGM and the learned Counsel for the
Municipal Corporation, Mr. Pradeep Patil.
(RAJESH S. PATIL, J.)
Anand 5 of 5
