1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.359 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.480 OF 2010 Mohanlal Bhurmal & ors ..Appellants V/s. The Municipal Corporation ..Respondents of Greater Mumbai & ors Mr.M.S.Menon, Advocate, for the Appellants Smt.K.K.Soraan, Advocate, for the MCGM Mr.H.R.Pawar, Advocate, for Respondent No.4 Mr.P.S.Dani with Mr.Arvind Pawar, Advocate, for Respondent No.5 CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND JUNE, 2010 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. One Mohanlal Bhurmal and Suresh Shankar Sutar, who are the Appellants have tendered an Application stating that they want to change the Advocate. There is no question of considering this Application at this stage. 2 In any case, after hearing the learned Counsel for the Appellants I find that the learned Trial Judge was not unjustified in refusing to grant ad-interim relief. The reasons given by him were sufficient to refuse the ad-interim relief. He has not rejected Notice of Motion. He would consider the Notice of Motion on 2nd July, 2010, when it is to come up for hearing before the learned Trial Judge. Expressing that the learned Trial Judge would not be influenced by the reasons and also expeditiously dispose of the Notice of Motion, the Appeal from Order is disposed of. 3. In view of disposal of the Appeal from Order, Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)