1 946.11-ao IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 946 OF 2011 Vijaykumar Gaikwad. ... Appellant. V/s. Mr.Peter Cajetan Travasso and others. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1021 OF 2011 Ignatius Pereira. ... Appellant. V/s. Mr.Peter Cajetan Travasso and others. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1066 OF 2011 Smt.Secrement Fernandes. ... Appellant. V/s. Mr.Peter Cajetan Travasso and others. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1067 OF 2011 Mr.Anthony D’Souza. ... Appellant. V/s. Mr.Peter Cajetan Travasso and others. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1068 OF 2011 Mr.Paul Gracias. ... Appellant. V/s. Mr.Peter Cajetan Travasso and others. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1069 OF 2011 Mrs.Rashida M. Hasan. ... Appellant. V/s. Mr.Peter Cajetan Travasso and others. ... Respondents. 2 946.11-ao WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1070 OF 2011 Mr.Ronnie Noronha. ... Appellant. V/s. Mr.Peter Cajetan Travasso and others. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1071 OF 2011 Mr.Anthony D’Souza. ... Appellant. V/s. Mr.Peter Cajetan Travasso and others. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1072 OF 2011 Rukumani P. Tambe. ... Appellant. V/s. Mr.Peter Cajetan Travasso and others. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1074 OF 2011 Octaviano A. Fernandes. ... Appellant. V/s. Mr.Peter Cajetan Travasso and others. ... Respondents. WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1075 OF 2011 Annie Fernandes. ... Appellant. V/s. Mr.Peter Cajetan Travasso and others. ... Respondents. R.M.Pradhan i/b. V.S.Kapse for the appellants (in A.O.Nos.946, 1067, 1070 and 1072/2011). V.R.Walawalkar i/b. Ajit Kenjale for the appellants (in A.O.Nos.1021, 1066 to 1069, 1071, 1074 and 1075/2011) 3 946.11-ao P.S.Dani with Yasmin Bhansali for respondent Nos.1 to 6. Ms.K.K.Soran for respondent Nos.7 and 8. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 29th September 2011. P.C. : These appeals from order can be disposed of by issuing certain directions to the trial Court. 2. The appellant is raising challenging to the order passed by the Judge, City Civil Court dated 16th July 2011 in notice of motions taken out in Suit Nos.1484 to 1490 and 1492 to 1494 of 2011 whereby the trial Court restrained defendant Nos.2 and 3 from issuing NOC to defendant No.1 for reconstruction of the suit premises and defendant No.1 is also restrained from carrying out further construction activity on the plaintiff’s property. 3. It is the contention of the appellants/ original defendant No.1 that necessary NOC has already been issued by MHADA before presentation of the suit on 22nd June 2011, as such, first part of the operative part of the order passed by the trial Court is rendered infructuous. It is also contended by the appellant that the City Civil Court shall have no jurisdiction to entertain these suits as the matter is covered by the provisions of the MHADA Act, 1976 as well as any other enactment. It would be open for the appellants to tender a separate notice of motion requesting the Court to frame preliminary issue as contemplated by section 9-A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) 4 946.11-ao touching the jurisdiction of the court and, if such notice of motion is presented within two weeks from today, the trial Court shall deal with the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks thereafter. 4. The ad-interim order passed by the trial Court dated 16th July 2011 shall be construed as ad-interim order passed under section 9-A(2) of C.P.C. 5. With the aforesaid directions, appeals from order stand disposed of. In view disposal of appeals from order, pending civil applications do not survive and stand disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)