-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1148 OF 2008 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1404 OF 2008 Venubai w/o Yeshwant G. Kini @ Bhandari and others ... Appellants versus Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation ... Respondent Mr. R.M. Nakhwa, instructed by Mr. Vasant Dhavan, for the appellants. Mr. Vinod Mahadik for the respondent. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR,J. DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2009. P.C. The appellants herein are the original plaintiffs of L.C. Suit No. 2230 of 2006 pending before the City Civil Court at Mumbai, Dindoshi. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are protected tenants in respect of the suit property i.e. piece and parcel of land in Survey No. 72, Hissa No. O, City Survey No. 288 of village Kiandivli, Tal. Borivli, admeasuring 4528.4 sq.mtrs. situated, lying and being at Bunder Pakhadi Road, Kandivli (West), Mumbai-400 067. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was not reserved for any public purpose. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the private builders acquired some development rights to develop the property and that the plaintiffs had not accepted the request of the builders for purchasing the suit property for development. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed the aforesaid suit seeking an order restraining the defendant-Corporation from interfering with the plaintiffs -2- peaceful use, occupation and possession of the aforesaid suit property. In the said suit, the plaintiffs have taken out a Notice of Motion for interim injunction in which initially, according to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, status quo was granted. The learned trial Judge, after hearing both the sides, found that there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs and accordingly, by order dated 18th September, 2008, the trial Court held that no injunction can be granted against the true owner at the instance of persons who are in unlawful possession. The trial Court found that the plaintiffs are in unlawful possession and, therefore, injunction cannot be granted. The Notice of Motion is accordingly rejected by the trial Court against which the present Appeal from order is preferred by the original plaintiffs. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in the said suit evidence is now recorded and the arguments of the defendants are going on and that for further arguments the matter is fixed on 14th September, 2009 and that the entire suit will be over before 30th September, 2009. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that the appellants have no prima facie case and, therefore, the learned trial Judge has rightly rejected the Notice of Motion by holding that the plaintiffs are not in lawful possession of the disputed land. He submitted that he is not aware as to whether the hearing in the said suit is completed or not. -3- 4. In my view, when the suit is already reached for hearing and it is at the hearing stage, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, accepting the statement of the learned counsel for the appellants that the matter is fixed for arguments on 14th September, 2009, the status quo order granted by this Court earlier is extended till 15th October, 2009 or till the suit is decided, whichever is earlier. In case the suit is decided before the aforesaid date, status quo upto 15th October, 2009 shall no longer operate. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter. Since the counsel for the appellant has submitted that the arguments of the advocates are going on and the suit is likely to come to an end by 30th September, 2009, that the aforesaid order is passed. It is for the learned trial Judge to decide the matter on its own merits and as per the evidence on record. It is further clarified that this Court has not adjudicated any issue on merit. 5. Appeal from Order is accordingly disposed of by passing an order to the effect that the status quo as of today shall be maintained by the parties till 15th October, 2009 or till the suit is decided finally, whichever is earlier. In view of the disposal of the appeal, no orders are required to be passed in the Civil Application. Civil Application is accordingly disposed of. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J.