1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 46 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 46 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 46 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 51 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2007 IN L.C.SUIT NO. 578 OF 2007 Smt. Shriyadevi Manickchand Jain & Anr. ... Appellants (Org.Plaintiffs) Versus Bombay Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ... Respondents (Org.defendants) Mr. R.R.Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants Mrs. Geeta Joglekar, Advocate, for the respondents. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. 2 DATE: 14th January,2008. DATE: 14th January,2008. DATE: 14th January,2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellants are the plaintiffs. A notice was issuede by the Respondent-Municipal Corporation for demolition of the unauthorised structure below the staircase in House No.16, J.P. Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. According to the plaintiffs, the structure is standing since prior to 1963 and, therefore, it is protected. However, the trial Court refused to grant ad-interim injunction. Hence, the appellants have filed the present Appeal. The Notice of Motion is still pending. 3. In the order dated 23.12.2007, while rejecting the prayer for ad-interim injunction, the trial Court noted that the plaintiffs have not annexed any authorisation of the suit structure and that the suit structure cannot be tolerated. 4. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants points out that there are 3 documents to show that this structure is in exisence prior to 1963 and in law protected and cannot be demolished. The Notice of Motion is still pending and therefore, the trial Court can look into these docuemnts. 5. The learned Counsel for the Respondent-Corporation contends that after rejection of the ad-interim relief, the officers of the Municipal Corporation have already demolished the suit structure and, therefore, no relief can be granted. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs makes a statement that only a hole is made by the officers of the Municipal Corporation, but the structure is still there. This fact is denied by the Counsel for the Corporation. The photographs shown by the parties reveal that a complete wall appears to have been almost demolished. If any structure is remaining, the plaintiffs may approach the trial Court and seek appointment of the Commissioner to find out the exact positon. As the Notice of Motion is pending and all material needs to be considered, I do not see any reason to interfere in the ad-interim order at this stage. 6. The respondents shall file reply to the Notice of Motion within two weeks and the trial Court shall 4 hear and dispose of the Notice of Motion within two weeks thereafter. Till then, the present status-quo be maintained. 7. If the plaintiffs-appellants desire, they may move the trial Court for appointment of Commissioner for inspection. 8. The photographs taken out by the Municipal Corporation be kept on record. The Appeal stands disposed of. 9. As the Appeal itself is disposed of, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)