First Appeal No. 689 of 2002. Case: Sitaram Sakharam Keluskar Vs Dayaram Gulzarilal Deval. High Court of Bombay (India)
| Case Number | First Appeal No. 689 of 2002 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Mr. R.S. Datar, Advocate |
| Judges | A. P. Bhangale, J. |
| Issue | Civil Procedure Code |
| Citation | 2013 (6) MahLj 654 |
| Judgement Date | September 27, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Bombay (India) |
Judgment:
A. P. Bhangale, J.
-
The appeal is preferred against judgment and order dated 22.12.2000 passed by learned First Additional Principal Judge, Bombay City Civil Court, Mumbai, in S.C. Suit No. 5167 of 1989 whereby the suit was dismissed with costs. The appellant (original plaintiff) had prayed for mandatory injunction against respondent to the effect that defendant should be ordered to remove the construction of drainage allegedly on the door step of the plaintiff and affecting the entrance of the plaintiff with damages claimed in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- and also mandatory injunction in terms that dangerous portion of the first floor falling on the plaintiff's room be removed as unauthorized and illegal construction. According to plaintiff (appellant) he is tenant occupying Room No. 24, situated at 9, Punjabi Chawl, Jawahar Nagar, Khar (E), Mumbai, while defendant is owner of the said chawl. When tenant wanted to carry out certain repairs with the permission of Municipal authorities, landlord had objected and he had filed civil Suit No. 811 of 1986 in the court of Small Causes for injunction, while in the Bombay City Civil Court, suit was filed against Bombay Municipal Corporation and tenant, in which tenant had to file writ petition in the High court. Eventually, tenant was permitted to carry out repairs pursuant to the orders by the High court. The plaintiff had also alleged that defendant constructed a bungalow within four feet distance of the plaintiff's tenement which resulted in lowering the level of the plaintiff's premises and stoppage of drainage water, which according to plaintiff, defendant did without permission from the Municipal Corporation. Further, according to the plaintiff, he had approached Municipal authority but no action was taken against the defendant. Thus, on the ground that defendant carried out unauthorized construction without permission from Municipal corporation, and for mandatory injunction as stated above...
To continue reading
Request your trial