1 ao302-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.302 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.436 OF 2011 Nanakchand h. Bansal .. Appellant V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai .. Respondent ..... Mr. R. A. Thorat i/b. Mr. V. K. Gupta for the appellant. Mrs. K. K. Soraan for the respondent – BMC. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : APRIL 15, 2011. P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. In a suit filed by the appellant the challenge is to the action of demolition under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. By the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has declined to grant ad- interim injunction. 2. The Notice of Motion is pending. Suffice to say that the 2 ao302-11 approach of the learned trial Judge appears to be erroneous. In the averments made in the plaint, it is not the case made out that the suit structure was in existence before the datum line. As Notice of Motion pending, in the facts of the case, it is not necessary to record findings on merits. Prima facie, it appears that the learned Judge has misdirected himself. Hence, till the disposal of the Notice of Motion, the suit structure deserves to be protected. 3. Hence, I pass the following order : :: O R D E R :: i. The impugned order dated 9th March, 2011 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court is set aside. ii. Ad-interim relief granted on 14th March, 2011, in this Appeal will continue to operate till the disposal of the Notice of Motion. Hearing of the Notice of Motion is expedited. 3 ao302-11 iii. All contentions of the parties on merits of the Notice of Motion is kept open. iv. Civil Application No.436 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE