High CourtsSingle Bench

Mohd. Riyaz vs Municipal Corporation And Others

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 5 August 2022 · Citation: (2022) 08 MP CK 0009

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226 · Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Section 151, Order 39 Rule 1, Order 39 Rule 2
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 18161 Of 2022
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 350 words

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J

Heard on the question of admission as well as on interim relief.

I n this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.02.2022 passed by the Municipal Corporation directing demolition of the house in question. Being aggrieved the petitioner had challenged the order before the Civil Court and had applied for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC which has been rejected vide order dated 30.07.2022. Both the orders are under challenge.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed a civil suit in which the interim stay was granted to the petitioner under Section 151 of the CPC, thereafter the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was dismissed by the trial Court. As a consequence, interim stay granted to the petitioner, was also vacated. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid, the Miscellaneous Appeal No.15787/2022 (Annexure P/15) had been filed on 01.08.2022 and the matter was listed on 02.08.2022 but the Court refused to hear the matter for grant of injunction and listed the appeal on 10.08.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that interim stay was continued since very beginning, however, as on date there is no interim stay. The building in question would be demolished by the respondents at any point of time, in view of the fact that the appellate Court has not passed any order.

Shri Ruprah, Addl. Advocate General has undertaken in the open court that the respondents shall not demolish the building in question.

In such circumstances, it is directed that status quo, as it exists today, shall be maintained by the parties till the application of interim stay filed along with the appeal before the Appellate Court is decided.

I n case, any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, the respondents shall not demolish the building in question for another seven days thereafter, enabling the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy.

In view of the aforesaid observation, this writ petition stands disposed of.

Certified copy today.