1 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.43 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.3903 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO.2765 OF 2009 AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO.381 OF 2010 IN APPEAL NO.43 OF 2010 Rajesh Vijendra Sharma. ...Appellant. Vs. 1.Surendra Sharma & ors. ...Respondents. --- Mr.Jitendra G.Damani, for Appellant. Mr.Gaurav Joshi, for Respondent nos.1,2,4 & 6. Mr.D.H.Mehta, for Respondent no.5. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & V.R.KINGAONKAR,JJ. DATED: 21st April, 2010 2 P.C.: 1. By this appeal, the original plaintiff challenges the order dated 9.12.2009. By that order, the learned Single Judge has declined to grant ad- interim order in the notice of motion. The principal reason given by the learned Single Judge is that the ad-interim order restraining defendants from carrying out further construction is sought almost after seven months after starting the construction, therefore, such an order could not have been made at the ad- interim stage. We do not find any error in the order, specially considering that the notice of motion is still pending. We request the learned Single Judge hearing the notice of motion, to hear the notice of motion as expeditiously as possible. Appeal is disposed of. In view of the aforesaid order, notice of motion no.381 of 2010 does not survive for consideration, it is disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.)