SHRI. VINAYAK NIMHAN v. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF PUNE AND ORS.
WP/4407/2017 · 2026-08-19
Civil Appealbody2017
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2017 DAILYLAW 2922 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2017 DAILYLAW 2922 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
k 1/3 32 wp 4407.17 as.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4407 OF 2017 Vinayak Nimhan since deceased through legal heirs Swati Vinayak Nimhan & Ors. ....Petitioners V/S The Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune & Ors. ....Respondents _________ Ms. Srushti Chalke i/b Ms. Drupad S. Patil for the Petitioners. Mr. R.M. Pethe for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. S.P. Thorat for Respondent No.3. Mr. Hrishikesh S. Shinde for Respondent No.4. __________
CORAM : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
DATE : 19 AUGUST 2026. P.C.:
1. The Petition challenges the order dated 21 March 2017 passed by the learned District Judge dismissing Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No.356 of 2016 as not maintainable. The Appeal was filed challenging order dated 22 August 2016 passed by the Trial Court on Application at Exhibit-45. The Application was filed by Pune Municipal Corporation seeking a clarification that there was no restraint order operating by virtue of order dated 18 February 2016 passed on Application at Exhibit-5 which warranted stay of demolition of wall. The Trial Court accordingly proceeded to clarify that the order dated 18 February 2016 actually did not grant any restraint order qua demolition of the wall. katkam Page No.
1 of
3
2026:BHC-AS:34307
k 2/3 32 wp 4407.17 as.doc Petitioner got aggrieved by the order dated 22 August 2016 and challenged the same by filing Appeal under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code). The Appellate Court has held that the Appeal is not maintainable.
2. It is seen that the Suit is pending since the year 2015 and a period of 10 long years is spent in only clarifying the position as to whether the Exhibit-5 order contemplated any restraint on the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the wall. If order dated 18 February 2016 is perused the operative directions therein are as under:
"आदेश
"१.
वादीचा निशाणी कमांक ५ अन्वयेचा अर्ज खचासह मंर्जुर करण्यात येतो.
२.
प्रतितवादींा असे निद"नि#त करण्यात येते की, स. ं. ३९/५,
बाणेर या निमळकतीतील
कच्च्या लेआउटमुसार,
आर्जपासु पुढे,
पुणे मपा मंर्जुर करणार असलेल्या बांधकाम
काशानिव#यीचे काम या दाव्याचा अंतितम निकाल लागे पावेतो पुणे मपाे स्थनिगत ठेवावे.
३.
पुणे मपाे पुव7 मंर्जुर के लेल्या स. ं. ३९/५,
बाणेर या निमळकतीतील बांधकाम
काशावर या आदेशाचा कोणताही परिरणाम होणार ाही.”
3. The Petitioner believes that since the Application at Exhibit-5 is granted, all prayers made therein are necessarily allowed. However, though the Trial Court has observed that the Application at Exhibit-5 is allowed, the exact nature of injunction which is granted is clarified in operative direction No.2 thereon, which does not include any restraint
order against the Municipal Corporation from demolishing the wall. In that sense, the order passed by the Trial Court on 22 August 2016 appears to be in order. katkam Page No.
2 of
3
k 3/3 32 wp 4407.17 as.doc
4. Since it is clear that order dated 18 February 2016 does not put any restraint on Municipal Corporation from demolishing the wall, the remedy for the Petitioners will be to challenge the order dated 18 February 2016 by filing a Miscellaneous Appeal before District Court. However, instead of doing so, it would appropriate that the suit itself is decided in an expeditious manner. If Petitioners are now permitted to file an Appeal against order dated 18 February 2016, parties would spend further time on the issue of temporary injunction. It is therefore in the interest of all the parties that the suit itself is decided in an expeditious manner. Even otherwise, the issue of demolition of wall has been rendered academic on account of the fact that the Municipal Corporation has actually demolished the wall.
5. Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of by requesting the Trial Court to decide Regular Civil Suit No.2199 of 2015 in an expeditious, manner preferably within a period of 18 months.
6. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. Writ Petition is disposed of.
(SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.) katkam Page No.
3 of
3
Signed by: Sudarshan R. Katkam Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 20/08/2026 11:38:44