IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY CHAMBER SUMMONS NO IN L.C.

SUIT NO 4643 OF 2012 Vidya Chandrakant Patil Adult, residing at Flat No. 9, First Floor, Rath Mansion, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai 400 028 Versus 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater ] ] ] ] ] ... Plaintiff OF 2013

Mumbai, Mahapalika Bhavan, Mahapalika ] Marg, Fort, Mumbai 400001 2. B.S. Rath ] ] ] ] ] ... Defendant

3rd Floor, Rath Mansion Society, 650, Dr. V.J. Rath Road, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai 400 028

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT this Honble Court will be moved before HHJ Shri C.R. No. 24, on the day of April , presiding in 2013 at 11

oclock (IST) in the forenoon or so soon thereafter as

the Counsel can be heard on the part of the Defendant No. 2 for the following orders:-

a)

that this Honble Court be pleased to direct the Plaintiff to give inspection of all the documents referred to, relied upon and annexed to the Plaint under Order XI, Rule 15 of the Civil procedure Code, 1908;

b)

that in the alternative if the Plaintiff fails or refuses to give inspection of the documents, this Honble Court be pleased to dismiss the Plaintiffs suit;

c)

that this Honble Court be pleased to appoint a Commissioner or any person found

suitable to visit suit site under Order XVIII, Rule 18 of CPC 1908 and submit a report, photographs and video shooting of the suit premises; d) that cost of this Chamber Summons be provided for;

e)

that such other and further reliefs as the nature and circumstances of require, be granted; the case may

This Chamber Summons is taken out by ] Mr. Pradeep D. Gandhy, Advocate for Defendant No.2 having his Office at 40 Lawyers Chambers, 2nd Floor, Picket Road, Mumbai 400 002 ] ] ] ]

Advocate for Defendant No. 2 To, Vidya Chandrakant Patil (Plaintiff above named)

Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai (Defendant No.1 above named) N.B. Please note that the affidavit of the Defendant No 2 solemnly affirmed on the day of April

2013 will be used in support of this Chamber Summons.

IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY CHAMBER SUMMONS NO IN L.C. SUIT NO 4643 OF 2012 OF 2013

Vidya Chandrakant Patil Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...

...

Plaintiff

Defendants

I, B.S. Rath, Defendant No.2, herein having my address at 3rd Floor, Rath Mansion Society, 650 Dr. V.J. Rath Road, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 do hereby on solemn affirmation say and submit as under:-

1.

I say that the Plaintiff has filed the above suit

challenging the Notice u/s. 351 of the MMC Act and the consequent order passed thereon.

2.

I say that by suppressing material and effectual

facts, the Plaintiff has obtained an ex-parte order of status quo which is in force even today.

3.

I say that status quo order was obtained after

giving a short notice of 24 hours to me, which is too short for any party to meet up and appoint a lawyer to represent him/her. I say, no notice was given to Defendant no. 1 who has issued demolition notices for illegal structures in violation of Development Control Rules (DCR). I say, however, having been served with the papers and proceedings, I have filed my written statement. I say that prior to the filing of the written

statement/ reply, correspondence has ensued between the parties. Hereto annexed and marked EXHIBIT I

(Colly) are copies of the said correspondence.

4.

I say that it will also not be out of place to state

that the when the Order was obtained, a false statement on oath was made by Plaintiff before the Court that the Defendant No.1 has been served with the papers and proceedings, when in fact the papers were served on the Defendant No. 1 a good 10 (ten) days after obtaining the order. I say that the Honble Court needs to take a serious view of such misrepresentation and false

statement being made in order to snatch an ex-parte order and strictures be passed against the litigant and the Advocate representing the litigant.

5.

I say that from the correspondence requesting

for inspection of documents referred to, relied upon by the Plaintiff and the tenor of the of the Plaintiff/ Advocates replies, it is more than apparent and

abundantly clear that the Plaintiff and/or her Advocate is/are refusing to give inspection of the documents referred to, relied upon or exhibited in the Plaint, although required under Order XI, Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. I say that under Order XI, Rule 15 a party is required to give inspection of all the original documents relied upon. If the court insists upon compliance with rules requesting inspection of the documents, litigation time will reduce appreciably.

6.

I say that the Plaintiff has fabricated and forged

Exhibits A and E which are plans not supported by IOD and contrary to DCR rules; Exhibit B of the Plaint purported to be an NOC is forged. I have neither

prepared nor signed it. These plans were already submitted by the Plaintiff to Defendant no. 1 and were not acceptable hence second demolition notice was issued to the Plaintiff by Defendant no. 1. I say that from the correspondence exchanged, it is clear that the Plaintiff is avoiding to give inspection of the documents without which I will not be able to demonstrate and prove that the Plaintiff has come before this Honble Court by suppression of material facts and by producing fabricated demolition and u/s forged 351 of documents MMC Act to protect from

illegal

structures

constructed on my land, which the Plaintiff will not be entitled to rely upon under Order XI Rule 15 of the CPC 1908. 7. I say that I have also prayed for appointment

of Commissioner or any other fit and proper person to visit the suit site, prepare and submit report,

photographs and videograph under Order XVIII, Rule 18 read with Order XXVI, Rule 9 of the C.P.C. 1908. This will show that the stilt and garage area is enclosed illegally by the Plaintiff. I have already submitted photographs of the illegal amalgamation of garage with

the stilt area to which there is no denial by the Plaintiff by way of rejoinder. However, for expeditious disposal of the suit, the Honble Court may be pleased to appoint a Commissioner to take photographs, videograph and present them to the Court to prove the falsehood of the Plaintiffs case and the proof thereof. For the reason that it is the case of the Plaintiff that the stilt area is used for parking only, whereas it is my case that the open type garage and stilt area have been covered, amalgamated and converted to be used for residential/ commercial purpose in violation of Development Control Rules (DCR) for which Defendant No. 1 has issued two notices for demolition u/s 351 of MMC Act. I say that unless and

until local inspection is carried out and a physical verification is done at suit site, the exact position will not be known.

8.

I say that under Section 151 of C.P.C. 1908,

when there is no provision of law to meet the ends of justice, the Court has the powers to grant orders as sought for herein.

9.

I, therefore, pray that the reliefs sought for

herein be granted. I say that no prejudice, harm, loss or damage will be caused to the Plaintiff if the reliefs are granted in my favour. On the contrary, if the same are not granted, grave injustice, harm, loss and damage will be caused, as I will not be able to prove the falsity and frivolousness of the Plaintiffs case without being given the complete and satisfactory inspection of the

documents referred to, relied upon and annexed to the Plaint. favour. I say that the balance of convenience is in my

10.

In the circumstances, I pray that the Chamber

Summons taken out by me be made absolute with costs. Advocate for Defendant No. 2 (Defendant No.2)

VERIFICATION I, B.S. Rath, Defendant No.2, herein having my address at 3rd Floor, Rath Mansion Society, 650, Dr. V.J. Rath Road, Shivaji Park, Dadar, Mumbai 400028, do hereby on solemn affirmation say that what is stated in

the foregoing paragraphs is true to my own knowledge, belief and information, which I believe to be true.

Solemnly affirmed at Mumbai on this the day of April

] 2013 ]

Identified by me,

Advocate for Defendant No. 2

Before me,

IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. OF 2013 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 4643 OF 2012 Vidya Chandrakant Patil Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ... Defendants

...

Plaintiff

CHAMBER Dated this the

SUMMONS day of April 2013

PRADEEP D. GANDHY Advocate for Defendant No. 2 40 Lawyers Chambers 2nd Floor, Picket Road Mumbai 400 002

IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. OF 2013 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 4643 OF 2012 Vidya Chandrakant Patil Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. ...

...

Plaintiff

Defendants

Affidavit of Defendant No.2 in support of the Chamber Summons. Dated this the day of April 2013

PRADEEP D. GANDHY Advocate for Defendant No. 2 40 Lawyers Chambers 2nd Floor, Picket Road Mumbai 400 002