-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.933 OF 2005 FROM ORDER PASSED ON 19.08.2005 BY CITY CIVIL COURT IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.2950 OF 2005 IN B.C.C.LONG CAUSE SUIT NO.3314 OF 2005 Nazarali Shamsuddin & Sons .. Appellant v/s. The Municipal Corporatiion of Greater Mumbai. .. Respondent Ms.Sunita Poddar with Mr.S.H.Bohre for the appellant. Mr.J.J.Xavier for the respondent. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE, J. DATED : 10th October, 2005 P.C. Heard. 2. The notice issued under section 351 of the M.M.C.Act is clear and the view taken by the learned Judge of the trial court in refusing the interlocutory protection is with cogent reasons. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned order. A.O.stands dismissed accordingly. -2- 3. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the appellant will himself take steps to remove the notice structure. 4. Two weeks time is hereby granted to the appellant for the same, failing which the Corporation may proceed. (B.H. (B.H. (B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.) MARLAPALLE, J.) MARLAPALLE, J.)