1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1062 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1310 OF 2009 Shri Shashibhushan R. Pandey ..Appellant V/s The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ..Respondents ---- Mr.K.K.Pandey for the appellant. Mrs. K.K. Soraan for the respondent/BMC. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 12th October, 2009. PC 1 Heard both sides. In my view, appeal can be disposed off finally at the stage of admission. Hence, Admit. Heard finally forthwith. 2 This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiff against the dismissal of his Notice of Motion. It appears from the record that ad-interim relief was granted after hearing the plaintiff on 28.4.2009. Thereafter the impugned order dismissing the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion has been passed even though no reply was filed by the Corporation till 10.9.2009. On perusing the impugned order, I find that it is very cryptic order. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiff that notice could have been given under Section 351 of BMC Act instead of passing a final order under Section 55 of the M.R.T.P Act. This contention is not 2 dealt with. Advocate for the Corporation states that appeal could have been filed. Even this aspect is not dealt with in the impugned order. In the circumstances, I am inclined to set aside the order and the matter is remanded for passing of the fresh order after hearing both sides and after the filing of the reply by the defendant. Hearing of the Notice of Motion is expedited. It is made clear that pending the disposal of the Notice of Motion the ad-interim order that was operating on the day when impugned order was passed, will continue to operate. Appeal disposed off with the aforesaid directions. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1310 OF 2009 As the main appeal is disposed off, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3