2 Pannalal on his companycerned site, judgment will be pronounced in this case in the light of the said order or sanction given by the Corporation.
Injunction restraining the number applicant NO.1 from giving sanction to the building proposal,if any, submitted by number applicant No.2 without first deciding the objection raised by the applicant Injunction restraining the number applicant No.1 from giving sanction to extension, modification, alteration, companystructions or such other things in future, without first hearing the applicant.
2, is estopped and precluded from raising the companytention as regards propriety of order dated 17.11.1993 before this Court for the first time.
1 and 2 directing them to remove the un authorised illegal work carried out by them and restraining them in future from undertaking any authorized and illegal work in companytravention of the provisions of Nagpur Corporation Act and the by laws made thereunder.
36, Ladpura, Itwari, Nagpur and to pass suitable order granting sanction for the proposed companystruction etc.
The proceeding under the provisions of Section 286 5 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act was instituted in the year 1981.
The dispute between the parties herein arose due to refusal to grant sanction of a building plan filed by respondent No.
1 Corporation through its Administrator to companysider site plan or building plan submitted by N.A. 2 Pannalal and pass suitable order granting sanction for the proposed companystruction keeping in view the rules and byelaws framed by the Corporation in regard to companystruction or erection of buildings on sites together with objections, if any, from Rukhabdas Jain within fifteen days from receipt of this order.
115 of 1996 by an order dated 23.03.1998.
Appellant also filed an application seeking an interim order of injunction restraining respondent No.
The Miscellaneous Civil Application filed by appellant was dismissed by an order dated 23.07.1984 inter alia on the premise that having regard to Section 275 3 of the Act, respondent No.
115 of 1996 preferred thereagainst by respondent No.
2 as also an order of injunction restraining him from proceeding with illegal companystruction.
249 of 1983, on 21.10.1983 vide outward No.
2 was number in companyformity with Bye Law No.
However, from the statement of the learned Advocate for N.A. No.
It was number approved within a period of sixty days.
On 21.11.1983, i.e., Monday next, the plan was sanctioned in favour of respondent No.
After receipt of suitable order or sanction given by the Corporation in respect of companystruction proposed by the Non applicant No.
Dr. Rajeev B. Masodkar, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, in support of these appeals,contended Having regard to the limited jurisdiction exercised by the learned District Judge, an order of mandatory injunction companyld number have been passed and that too without any application having been filed therefor.
As respondent No.
1 Corporation from granting any sanction of building plan submitted by respondent No.
2 Pannalal it appears that you have number companyplied with the said order, number any companypliance report submitted by you in this Court so far.
In the very order you were directed to companyply with the said order within 15 days from receipt thereof.
Civil Application No.
Considering the pendency of more than 15 years, I direct the trial Court to decide the matter within six months from the receipt of the writ of this Court.
A civil revision application was preferred thereagainst before the High Court.
Appellant is his neighbour.
The Assistant Judge should decide the application within fifteen days.
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said direction, the learned Trial Judge upon hearing the parties allowed the Misc.
Respondent No.
The High Court by an order dated 20.06.1984 directed disposal of the injunction application within fifteen days from the said date, stating Mr. Rajkarne states that he will pull down the offending structure should the order finally go against him.
Meanwhile, the interim injunction order dated 2.8.1983 to companytinue.
A part of the land on which the companystructions were said to have been raised by respondent No.
A review application filed by appellant has been dismissed.
Respondent No.
249 of 1983 directing the Corporation to remove the unauthorized companystruction made by respondent No.
Till then the judgment is deferred.
Civil Application No.
Respondent No.
It was furthermore companytended that the said plan had been returned to him on 4.08.1983.
2 was allowed and the learned Trial Judge was permitted to proceed with the trial.
An appeal was preferred thereagainst.
2 Pannalal S o Trilokchand Khedkar of house No.
The said application was transferred to the Court of Second Extra Assistant Judge.
It was heard on or about 3.10.1983 and posted for judgment on 12.10.1983.
4 of Building Bye Laws.
On the premise that the said plan would be deemed to have been sanctioned, he raised companystructions.
585 and respondent No.
Respondent No.
Appellant filed an application before the District Judge, Nagpur in terms of Section 286 5 of the Act on or about 1.08.1983, inter alia for the following reliefs Grant of mandatory injunction against the number applicant No.
Appellant, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said decision of the learned District Judge, preferred an appeal before the High Court.
1 passed an order of sanction on the threat of companytempt the same should number have been given effect to.
2 was entitled to start and carry on companystructions relying on or on the basis of the deemed sanction.
The said appeal marked as First Appeal No.
All the three appeals were taken up for hearing together and by reason of the impugned judgment, the appeals preferred by respondent No.
Revision disposed of.
A Letters Patent Appeal marked as LPA No.
The numbercompliance on your part of the said order may amount to companytempt of companyrt.
As on the said date, the Presiding Officer was on leave, the matter was posted for judgment on 21.10.1983.
348 of 1983, to companysider the site plan building plan submitted by Non applicant No.
476 of 1997 was directed to be heard with LPA No.
By an order dated 21.10.1983, the learned Judge passed the following order Hence by invoking the principle of natural justice and the inherent powers vested in me under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, I hereby direct the Non applicant No.
The trial Court is also directed to companysider the two applications filed by the appellant in this Court for amendment to the original application under Section 286 5 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act.
Width and amplitude of jurisdiction of the District Judge in terms of Section 286 5 of the City of Nagpur Corporation Act, 1948 for short the Act is in question in these appeals which arise out of judgments and orders dated 24.09.2004 and 6.04.2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench.
2 belonged to the Corporation of City of Nagpur for short the Corporation itself.
2 and his predecessors, however, are said to be in possession thereof for a long time and acquired an indefeasible title thereto.
2 allegedly had submitted a plan for companystruction of a building.
1 Corporation in its written statement before the learned District Judge companytended that the plan submitted by respondent No.
An application for vacation of stay was filed on 1.12.1983 and by an order dated 4.02.1984, the order of interim injunction was vacated.
2 submitted a plan on 19.11.1983, which happened to be a Saturday.
Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, learned companynsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.
A Letters Patent Appeal was also filed questioning the order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.03.1998.
Appellant is owner of a house bearing No.
On the premise that the said order was number companyplied with, a show cause numberice was issued on 17.11.1983 for initiation of a proceeding under the Contempt of Courts Act against the Executive Officer of the Corporation in the following terms This companyrt had served upon you order dated 21.10.1983 in Misc.
You are, therefore, directed to show case, why suitable action for companytempt of companyrt be number taken against you within 3 days from receipt of this numberice.
2 is owner of a neighbouring house bearing No.
B. SINHA, J Leave granted.
2, on the other hand, submitted Appellant, having number challenged the order of the Corporation dated 21.11.1983 granting sanction in favour of the respondent No.
1 supported the companytention of Dr. Masodkar.
