Mumbai Court Orders Separate Judicial Inquiry Into False Statements Allegation In Housing Society Garage Dispute

Mumbai: In a dispute over an alleged unauthorised garage constructed in a housing society, a Mumbai City Civil Court has directed that a plea accusing a defendant of making false statements be taken up separately as a judicial inquiry.

Judge's Order

Judge Shilpa Todkar, on April 29, said the application filed by the plaintiff, M/s Celine Maria Fernandes, against defendant No. 2, Homyar H. Limbuwala, cannot be heard within the pending civil suit and must be registered independently as a miscellaneous application.

The original suit, filed in 2020, concerns allegations that an enclosed garage in Hoshang Baug Society in Kole, Kalyan, was illegally constructed in the open space of the housing society. During the proceedings, the plaintiff accused Limbuwala of making false statements on oath and suppressing key facts to mislead the court. It sought action against him under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

False Statements Allegation

Her counsel argued that the defendant’s say was not necessary at the stage of registering the application.

After hearing the submissions and examining the record, the court referred to paragraph 337 of Chapter XIX of the Civil Manual, which lays down the procedure for applications requiring judicial inquiry.

Maintainability Ruling

“Without going into the merits… the application is required to be separately registered as a Miscellaneous Application requiring Judicial Inquiry,” the court said, adding that such a plea is “not maintainable” within the pending suit.

The court directed the Registrar (Civil) to register the application separately and record it in the appropriate register. It also directed the plaintiff to serve notice along with documents on the defendant after registration. Both parties were asked to take note of the directions.

Previous Dismissal of Rejection Plea

The underlying suit was filed in 2020 by Fernandes, a member of the housing society, alleging that defendants carried out unauthorised construction of a garage in the society’s open space.

In January 2023, the court had dismissed a plea by Limbuwala seeking rejection of the plaint. He had argued that the suit was filed beyond limitation, that the society was a necessary party, and that the plaintiff had no locus standi.

The court, however, held that limitation was a mixed question of fact and law requiring evidence. It noted that more details about the alleged construction came to light around 2015-16 when the plaintiff’s husband became the society’s secretary and complaints were made to the municipal authorities.

It also found that objections on court fees and locus standi could not be decided at that stage without trial.

To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/