Adjourning the next hearing in Kangana Ranaut vs BMC case, the Bombay High Court told the civic body that they can’t leave the demolished property as it is. The BMC officer Bhagyavant Late, who carried out the demolition on September 9, told the court in the hearing on Thursday that they needed more time to file an affidavit. This irked the Division bench of Justice SJ Kathawalla and Justice RI Chagla who observed “We cannot leave the partly demolished house the way it is. We will start hearing the petitioner tomorrow, you need more time here but otherwise, you are very fast.” Also Read - Kangana Ranaut-BMC Demolition: HC Orders Sanjay Raut to Become a Party in Case
Kangana took to Twitter to thank the HC for its order. She wrote, “Honourable Justice HC, this brought tears to my eyes, in the lashing rains of Mumbai my house is indeed falling apart, you thought about my broken house with so much compassion and concern means a lot to me, my heart is healed thank you for giving me back all that I had lost” (sic) Also Read - Kangana Ranaut vs BMC Court Hearing Today: Actor Demands Rs 2 Crore, Civic Body Requests For Dismissal of Petition
Earlier, in the previous hearing, the HC allowed Kangana to include Shiv Sena MP Sanjay Raut and the BMC Official who ordered the demolition to become parties in the case. On Thursday, advocate Pradeep Thorat appeared on behalf of Raut in the court and said that they need more time to file affidavit as the MP was in Delhi to attend the ongoing Parliament session. The court granted them the time till next Tuesday to file their affidavits while ordered the petitioner (Kangana’s side) to begin their arguments tomorrow. The matter will be heard tomorrow at 3 pm.
Earlier, while requesting the court to have Raut as a party in the case, Kangana’s lawyer had presented a video clip and the article written by the Shiv Sena MP in the party’s newspaper Saamna. The clip that showed Raut calling the actor ‘haramkhor‘ and the article that was written under the headline ‘Ukhaad Diya’, were presented before the court to argue that the BMC’s decision was based on mala fide and malicious intent driven by political pressure.