Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. As per the case of the petitioner in the petition, respondent No.3 co-operative society is a housing society. It is further stated that plot No.17 in the society is a common plot and is to be kept as common plot, however the society has proposed to use the said plot for constructing a commercial complex, which is in violation of the laws of the society and further in violation of the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. A Lavad Suit No.398 of 2008 has also been filed by the petitioner against the society in respect of the said grievance.

3.1 On the other hand, the case of the respondent No.3 society is that plot No.17 was never kept as common plot, it was a plot which was given number and in respect of which development permission for residential-cum-commercial construction has been granted by respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation. The rival case has been elaborated in the pleadings of the petition and the reply filed thereto.

5. Considering the submissions by learned advocates for the parties and further having regard to the facts obtaining as above, the position is that the Lavad Suit No.398 of 2008 instituted by the petitioner-plaintiff is already pending. The question whether the plot No.17 of the society could be put to use for commercial-cum-residential building or the same is required to be kept open as common plot, is at large before the Board of Nominees in the suit. The prayer in this petition about cancellation of plan for construction is dependent upon the outcome of the lavad suit. When the lavad suit is pending and the parties are to lead evidence before the Board of Nominees in the process of adjudication of the suit, the order which this petition books is that the plan of construction/development permission granted by respondent No.1 Corporation in respect of plot No.17 in question may not be acted upon, to be guided by and to be subject to the final outcome of the lavad suit.