1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. L.P.A. NO.345 OF 2009. IN WRIT PETITION NO.600 OF 2009 (D). HIRAMAN S/O HARISAO MOTGHARE AND ANOTHER. VS. NAGPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH MPL. COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court s or Judge s appearances, Court's orders or direction Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri S. P. Kshirsagar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S. K., Mishra, Advocate for Respondents. Shri YB Mandpe, AGP for Resondent/State Coram : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2009. Heard. After hearing learned Advocate for the appellant and Advocate Shri Mishra for Respondent no.1 for some time, though we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order on merits, as the petitioner is contending that his construction is not illegal and hence, there is no question of taking recourse to section 44 of MRTP Act 2 1966, without prejudice to the contentions of the respondents in the matter, we permit the appellant to file fresh plaint in accordance with law before the appropriate forum within a period of 3 weeks from today. Interim order protecting his structure shall continue for the said period of three weeks. Shri Mishra Advocate has pointed out that the impugned notice in the matter is one under Section 53 of MRTP Act, and if the appellant approaches under Section 44, the notice cannot be implemented or executed. As the appellant is attempting to show that there is no reason for him to approach under section 44, we have permitted him to file fresh Civil suit with necessary pleadings and continued the interim orders. This dos not mean that such fresh civil suit is held tenable by us. With this liberty, LPA is disposed off. No costs. 3 It is clarified that the continuation of interim order or any observation made by this Court shall not influence the Trial Court, and the issue of its jurisdiction to take cognizance of that fresh suit is also kept open for consideration by it. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/