1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 434 OF 2009 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 522 OF 2009 Mrs.Kausarbano d/o Mohammed Abdul Sattar ... Appellant v/s Municipal Corpn. Of Gr. Mumbai ... Respondent Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the appellant. Mrs.K.K.Soraan for the respondent No.1 Corporation. Mr.Ram U. Singh for the respondent No.2. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 20TH JANUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the City Civil Court refusing any interim relief to the appellant. The appellant claims that her suit structure should be protected from demolition and that the Corporation should be directed to act in accordance with law by following due process of law in case they wish to demolish the structure. 2 2. It appears that the City Civil Court had appointed a Commissioner to ascertain as to whether the structure was in existence at the suit site claimed by the appellant. A report has been submitted on 11.4.2008 wherein the Commissioner has given details about the existence of the structure, the description of which is mentioned in the report. The report clearly indicates that the roof of the structure is no longer in existence. 3. The Corporation has produced photographs and the report of its officer indicating that when the officer inspected the site on 24.12.2009, the suit structure was found “in demolished condition and not of most recent origin.” 4. In these circumstances, in my view, the only relief that can be granted to the appellant at this stage is that parties shall maintain status-quo as of today during the pendency of the suit. The suit structure will continue to be maintained as found by the Commissioner in his report dated 11.4.2008. 5. Appeal from order disposed of accordingly. 6. In view of disposal of the appeal from order, the civil application stands dismissed. ..... 3