1 ao325 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.325 OF 2011 Mangidevi Jivraj Bokadia & Anr. ...Appellants vs. Dulichand Raichandji Chandan & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.M.Saraogi for the appellants Mr.Kiran Jain i/b M/s.Kiran Jain & Co. for the respondent no.1 Ms K.K.Soraan for respondent no.2 CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : APRIL 19,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellants who are the original plaintiffs. The learned counsel for the first respondent states that the first respondent has carried out necessary alterations in flat no.1 and has been using for the commercial purpose. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the use of the residential flat for commercial purpose is illegal and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation will have to be directed to take action against the first respondent in as much as due to alterations carried out, there is a danger to the building itself. 2 By the impugned order dated 10 th January 2008, notice of motion taken out by the appellant has been dismissed. There is no ad-interim relief granted by this Court. Therefore, there is no ad-interim relief operating for last three years. 3 Apart from that due to passage of time, the prayer for interim relief which was rejected by the impugned order cannot be granted, it is for the appellant to apply 2 ao325 to the Municipal Corporation seeking necessary action by the Municipal authorities. 4 Suffice it to say that no interference is called for with the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed by keeping the remedies of the appellants open. Civil application no.464 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. 5 The suit will be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the impugned order. 6 Hearing of the suit is expedited. JUDGE