SM 1 7.ao.449-450.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDEAR NO. 449 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 635 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDEAR NO. 449 OF 2011 Yawar Husain Gulam Husain Oomatia s/o Late Mr. Gulam Hussain Ali Mohd. ....Appellant Versus The Mumbai Repair and Reconstruction Board and others ....Respondents WITH APPEAL FROM ORDEAR NO. 450 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 636 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDEAR NO. 450 OF 2011 Smt. Farida Anwar ....Appellant Versus The Mumbai Repair and Reconstruction Board and others ....Respondents WITH APPEAL FROM ORDEAR NO. 451 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 637 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDEAR NO. 451 OF 2011 Shri. Riyaz Ahmed Ansari ....Appellant Versus The Mumbai Repair and Reconstruction Board and others ....Respondents ____________ Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh i/b Parvinder Singh Sethi for the Appellant in all A.Os. and C.As. Mrs. K. K. Sarna for BMC. Mr. P. G. Lad for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Y. E. Mooman for the Respondent No. 4. SM 2 7.ao.449-450.11 Mr. H. J. Dedhia, AGP for the Respondent No. 5. CORAM: R. M. BORDE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2011. P.C.: The appellants are taking exception to the ad-interim order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court in Notice of Motion. The application tendered by the appellants seeking an ad-interim order has been turned down by the Trial Court in view of the order passed on 23rd March, 2011. 2. The Counsel appearing for the appellants has invited my attention to the additional affidavit tendered by Yawar Husain Gulam Husain Oomatia s/o Late Mr. Gulam Hussain Ali Mohd, the appellant in the Appeal from Order No. 449 of 2011 and the letter issued by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai dated 26th April, 2011 is annexed to the affidavit. It is the contention of the appellant that, as the record which is annexed alongwith the additional affidavit was not available before the City Civil Court and as such could not be printed, the Court below was not convinced as regards the merits of the contentions raised by the appellants. It is further informed that the City Civil Court prescribed the date of hearing of the Notice of Motion as 28th September, 2011. 3. It would, therefore, be in the fitness of the things to direct the City Civil Court to dispose of the Notice of Motion on considering the rival contentions raised by both the parties before the Court. It is needless to mention that City Civil Court would take into amount the communication dated 26th April, 2011 SM 3 7.ao.449-450.11 annexed alongwith the additional Affidavit on which reliance is placed by the appellant. The respective parties to proceedings shall have liberty to raise their contentions before the City Civil Court and also may file additional affidavit, if required. It is needles to mention that the City Civil Court would render the decision after taking into considering the contentions raised by both the parties to the litigation and will render the decision in accordance with the provisions of law. 4. The Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 makes a statement that parties in Appeal from Order No. 451 of 2011 have reached settlement and handed over possession of the disputed premises. Nothing survives for consideration in the above three Appeals from Order. 5. For the reasons set out above, Appeals from Order are dismissed. 6. Pending Civil Applications, if any, stand disposed of. (R. M. BORDE, J.)