1 ao132-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 132 OF 2011 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 198 OF 2011 Kamruddin Nasruddin Shaikh .. Appellant V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents .... Mr. Pradeep Sachehti, senior counsel i/b. Meena Fulbandhe for the appellant. Mr. L. S. Shukla for respondent No.2. .... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : FEBRUARY 15, 2011. P.C. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant who is the original plaintiff. By the impugned order, prayer for ad- interim relief has been rejected by the learned trial Judge. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a consent decree and documents annexed to the Civil Application. Admittedly the documents annexed to the Civil Application are not produced before the trial Court. 2 ao132-11 2. Ad-interim relief which is sought in terms of prayer clauses (a) to (c) was of drastic nature in the sense that the ad-interim relief is of temporary injunction of mandatory nature. Considering the nature of ad-interim reliefs sought, the trial Judge has passed a discretionary order. As far as the rejection of appointment of Court Commissioner is concerned, the appellant will have to adopt appropriate proceedings. 3. No case is made out for interference with ad-interim order passed by the trial Court. Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Notice of Motion shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from today. 4. All contentions of the parties on merit are kept open 5. Civil application No.198 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE