KBP 7388-09.doc 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7388 OF 2009 Ganaji Bhanji Boricha (HUF) ..Petitioner Vs. The Thane Municipal Corporation ..Respondent ......... Mr.S.B.Shetye, for petitioner. ......... CORAM : A.S.OKA, J.. DATE : 27 th August, 2009. P.C. : 1] Not on board. Taken on board. 2] The first prayer in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for directing the trial court to postpone the hearing of application at exhibit 5 for temporary injunction till the applications at exhibits 24, 26 and 28 are decided by the trial court. The second prayer is that in the event the application exhibit 5 is rejected by the trial court the concerned court be directed to continue the ad-interim order passed on application at exhibit 5 for a period of 15 days. 3] The contention of the petitioner is that in breach of order of ad-interim injunction, the respondent Corporation has demolished a part of the suit structure. Therefore the applications have been filed under Rule 2-A as well as Rule 11 of order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which are pending. There is another application pending for appointment of the Court Commissioner under Rule 7 of the Order XXXIX of the said Code. There is an ad-interim order of injunction passed which is operating in favour of petitioner. 4] The application exhibit 5 will have to be heard and decided and the hearing of the said application cannot be postponed on the ground that the certain other applications are pending. It is stated in the petition that the learned trial Judge in the KBP 7388-09.doc 2 open Court expressed that there is no merit in the application at exhibit 5 and therefore there is an apprehension that the application for injunction will be rejected and the trial court may not extend the ad interim relief. 5] Assuming that what is stated in paragraph 15 of the petition is correct, it is obvious that the learned Trial Judge has obviously expressed only a tentative opinion on merits. That does not mean that the application at Exhibit 5 will not be decided on merits. The said application is bound to be heard and decided in accordance with law. If the said application is rejected, a remedy of preferring an appeal is available to the petitioner. 6] In the circumstances, this is not a case where extra ordinary jurisdiction of Article 227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked at this stage. Hence, the petition is not entertained and the same is rejected by keeping all questions open. ( A.S.OKA, J. )