1 ao234,235,236,237 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.234 OF 2011 Rajnikant Abheychand Mandalia ...Appellant vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.235 OF 2011 Sunil Bhagwanji Hingu ...Appellant vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.236 OF 2011 Umesh Karsandas Chawda ...Appellant vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.237 OF 2011 Asit Mangilal Kundaliya ...Appellant vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Respondent Mr.R.A.Thorat for the appellant Mr.J.J.Xavier for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 23,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. These appeals can be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. The appeals are preferred by the original plaintiffs. The challenge in the suits is to the action under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888. Apart from 2 ao234,235,236,237 other documents, in the reply to the notice under section 351 of the said Act, the appellants relied upon the approved building plan dated 10 th January 1956 in which the offending structures have been allegedly shown. The number of approved plan has been also incorporated in the reply. Prima facie, it appears to me that there is no reference to the said contention in the order passed by the respondent-Corporation. In the plaint reliance has been placed on the said sanctioned plan. The learned counsel for the appellant stated that prayer for ad- interim relief has been refused by the learned trial Judge even without giving an opportunity to file a copy of the said sanctioned plain. He states that the appellant will file a copy of the sanctioned plan on record of the suit. 2 Considering the fact that even in the reply to the notice under section 351 of the said Act, the appellants relied upon the alleged sanctioned plan, this is a fit case where the suit structures ought to have been protected till the disposal of the notice of motion for temporary injunction. 3 Though this Court is inclined to protect the suit structures, it is obvious that all contentions of the parties on merits will remain open and all issues will be considered by the trial Court while hearing the notice of motion on its own merits. Even the sanctioned plan, if produced, will have to be examined by the trial Court to ascertain whether the offending structures are showed therein. 4 Hence, appeals are disposed of by passing the following order : 3 ao234,235,236,237 i) The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. ii)The respondent to file a reply to the notice of motion within a period of six weeks from today. iii)The notice of motion shall be finally decided on or before 10th June 2011. Till the decision of the notice of motion, ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 1 st March 2011 will continue to operate. iv)Civil applications 345/2011, 346/2011, 347/2011 and 348/2011 do not survive and same are disposed of. JUDGE