1 1315.11-ao IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1315 OF 2011 M/s.Siroya FM Constructions Pvt.Ltd. ... Appellant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ... Respondent. P.K.Dhakephalkar, Senior Advocate with S.K.Srivastava and Ms.Shaikh i/b. S.K.Srivastava and Co. for the appellant. Ms.K.K.Soran for the respondent. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 25th November 2011. P.C. : Not on board. Production is allowed at the request of learned counsel for the appellant. 2. It is noticed that on 24th September 2010, the Executive Engineer of the Municipal Corporation issued a notice informing therein to the appellant- builders that they were already directed to stop work and it has been observed that in spite of such order they continued with the work and completed the building. In the same letter it is further suggested to the appellant/plaintiff that they may purchase requisite TDR so as to set right the irregularities and submit the proposal for regularization with occupation of the building constructed on the site. Pursuance to the communication dated 24th 2 1315.11-ao September 2010, after securing requisite TDR, a proposal is stated to have been made and is pending for consideration before the Municipal Corporation. In the meantime, the plaintiff approached City Civil Court seeking protection apprehending action of demolition at the hands of the Municipal Corporation. An application for grant of ad- interim relief tendered by the plaintiff has been rejected by the trial Court. 3. It is not controverted that the plaintiff has tendered proposal for regularization of the construction carried out by them and such proposal is capable of being considered under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. As such, it would be in the fitness of thing to direct the respondent Corporation to refrain from taking any adverse action against the plaintiff/ appellant herein until the proposal tendered by the appellant/plaintiff for regularization is considered by the Corporation. The respondent Corporation is, therefore, directed not to take any adverse action against the appellant/ plaintiff till the proposal submitted by them for regularization of construction is considered by the Corporation. 4. In the meanwhile, the trial Court is directed to decide pending notice of motion taken out in L.C.Suit No.2270/2011 on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The Municipal Corporation would be at liberty to file their written statement/reply along with documents, if any, before the trial Court. 3 1315.11-ao 5. The respondent- Corporation shall decide the proposal tendered by the plaintiff as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. Counsel for the plaintiff, on instruction, submits that the plaintiff will not proceed further with the construction work of the building till the proposal for regularization tendered by them is considered by the Corporation. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent Corporation undertakes to communicate this order to the Municipal Commissioner. 7. With the aforesaid directions, appeal from order stands disposed of. In view of disposal of appeal from order, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)