1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.915 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1103 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.915 OF 2008 Alka S. punamiya and Anr. .....Appellants V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..... Respondent Mr.Y.A.Sakhare, Sr.Advocate i/by Mr.J.J.Shah, for the appellants. Smt.K.K.Soraan, for the respondent. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 07, 2009 P.C. 1. The appellants are the original plaintiffs, who have filed L.C.Suit No.116 of 2008 before the City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Bombay. By the aforesaid suit, the plaintiffs have challenged the action taken by the Municipal Corporation to remove the unauthorized construction carried out by the defendants, as according to the Corporation, the said construction is contrary to the building plans submitted by the plaintiffs. The learned Trial Judge after considering the prima facie material on record, rejected the Notice of Motion No.122 of 2008 preferred by the original plaintiffs, by holding that the plaintiffs have failed to prove that the construction in question is authorized one. The plaintiffs have 2 constructed stair case and covering of ladi coba and other construction. The learned Trial Judge found that there is no document to show that the said construction is authorized one. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that plaintiffs have converted residential premises into commercial one. 2. The order of the learned Trial Judge is impugned in the present Appeal From Order. The learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that ad-interim injunction is operating in favour of the plaintiffs by the order of this Court dated 10-10-2008. The learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the suit is now ready for hearing and the Corporation has not yet filed any written statement. The learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that she has no objection if the suit is decided expeditiously and that such type of suit is required to be decided without delay. She further states that the Corporation may be given liberty to file written statement in the suit. 3. In view of consensus prevailing between the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the statement of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the suit is ready for hearing, it is directed that ad-interim injunction which is operating as on today, to continue till 30-04-2010 and the Trial Judge may try to dispose of the suit by the said date. The respondent-Corporation is directed to file 3 written statement, if not filed so far, within a period of four weeks from today. The learned counsel for the Corporation has assured the Court that such written statement would be filed within the stipulated time. The learned Trial Judge may frame issues without further delay, if not framed so far and may start recording of evidence so that the suit can be disposed of within the stipulated time. However, interim injunction granted earlier by this Court by its order dated 10-10-2008 shall remain into force till 30-04-2010 and in the meanwhile, the Trial Court may dispose of the suit. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion in any manner on merits as to whether the plaintiffs have prima facie case or not and this order is passed in view of the fact that the suit is likely to come to an end within a reasonable period. Writ to be sent to the learned Trial Judge immediately without any further delay. 4. Subject to what has been stated above, the appeal from order is disposed of. 5. In view of the disposal of the appeal from order, the civil application No.1103 of 2008 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)