LAWS(BOM)-2015-4-81

SATISH Vs. GOPAL RAMNARAYAN MUNDHADA AND ORS.

Decided On April 18, 2015
SATISH Appellant
V/S
Gopal Ramnarayan Mundhada And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) This writ petition at the instance of the original plaintiff takes exception to the order dated 242014 thereby deciding the preliminary issue as regards jurisdiction of the Civil Court to consider the reliefs sought in the plaint. The relevant facts are that according to the petitioner - plaintiff, there is a temple near his house in which various religious activities are regularly conducted. The respondent Nos.1 to 3 - defendant Nos.1 to 3 are having their residential house near said temple. In the month of May 2013, the petitioner noticed certain construction activities going on near the residential house of the respondent Nos.1 to 3. The petitioner learnt that a Hospital was being constructed at said place. According to the petitioner, the sanction for aforesaid construction that was granted by the respondent No.4 - Municipal Corporation was contrary to the building byelaws. According to the plaintiff, said construction activity was likely to result in various difficulties to the persons residing in the vicinity of the same. The petitioner, therefore, filed suit for declaration that the construction undertaken by the defendants was illegal and the same violated the civil rights of the plaintiff. The prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction was also sought seeking to restrain the respondent Nos.1 to 3 from making any construction on the basis of the sanctioned plan. A mandatory injunction was also sought to stop the aforesaid illegal construction.

(3.) The respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed their written statement and opposed the reliefs as sought. An objection was taken to the tenability of the suit on the ground that jurisdiction of the Civil Court was barred in view of provisions of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the said Act). Similar stand was also taken by the respondent No.4 contending that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to go into validity of the sanctioned plan.