IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 6944 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 6945 OF 2008 MANISH GANATRA ..APPELLANT V/S B.M.C. & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 6948 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 6950 OF 2008 MAHESH SOJPAL POLADIA @ SHAH ..APPELLANT V/S B.M.C. & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 6953 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 6954 OF 2008 HANSRAJ THAKKAR ..APPELLANT V/S B.M.C. & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 6957 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 6958 OF 2008 : 2 : ATUL M. THAKKER ..APPELLANT V/S B.M.C. & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 6966 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 6968 OF 2008 PRAKASH JAIN ..APPELLANT V/S B.M.C. & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 6969 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 6971 OF 2008 DHIREN M. LIMBACHIA ..APPELLANT V/S B.M.C. & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 6975 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 6974 OF 2008 MANSUKHLAL GOGARI ..APPELLANT V/S B.M.C. & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS : 3 : WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 7013 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 7014 OF 2008 HARISH J. SHAH ..APPELLANT V/S B.M.C. & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 7015 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 7017 OF 2008 DILIP PATEL ..APPELLANT V/S B.M.C. & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 7018 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 7019 OF 2008 RAMJI VORA ..APPELLANT V/S B.M.C. & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS : 4 : WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER ST. NO. 7030 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 7031 OF 2008 KUSUM GOGARI ..APPELLANT V/S B.M.C. & ANR. ..RESPONDENTS MR. P.K. DHAKEPHALKAR, SR. COUNSEL A/W MR. P.M. SHAH, ADVOCATE, FOR THE APPELLANT. MRS. GEETA JOGLEKAR, ADVOCATE, FOR BMC. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. CORAM: J.H. BHATIA, J. DATE : 19TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 19TH MARCH, 2008. DATE : 19TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. 1. Appeal against Orders as well as Civil Applications be registered. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The Dy. Chief Engineer, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, has issued notices under section 314 of the BMC Act for removal of certain structures on the allegations that the Appellants had unauthorisedly affixed a showcase in : 5 : front of the suit premises. It appears that the Appellants have taken the plea that all these structures are on the private land of their landlord and the structures are in existence for a long period i.e. about 50 years. It appears that initially ad interim relief in the form of status quo was granted but even though the Municipal Corporation did not file reply. Learned trial court vacated that order of ad-interim relief. Notice of Motion is still pending. In such circumstances, against the refusal to grant ad interim relief the plaintiffs have preferred the present Appeal. Taking into consideration the circumstances, in my considered opinion, it will be desirable to hear the parties and dispose of the Notice of Motion. Therefore, the Appeals stand disposed of with following directions:- 3. The Respondents shall file reply to the Notice of Motion within 2 weeks from this day and the trial court shall hear the parties and dispose of the Notice of Motions within 2 weeks thereafter. The parties shall maintain status quo till disposal of the Notice of Motion. Appeals stand disposed of accordingly. : 6 : 4. As Appeals are disposed of, the Civil Applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J) (J. H. BHATIA, J)