1 ao205group ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.205 OF 2011, Mr.A.R.Gupta ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.206 OF 2011, Bharatbhai G. Patel ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.207 OF 2011, Jayantilal T. Rathod ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.208 OF 2011, Piyush Nemji Gangar ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 209 OF 2011, Ajay P Shah ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 210 OF 2011, Mahesh T. Patel ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.211 OF 2011, 2 ao205group Anil Ramprakash Kapoor ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.212 OF 2011, Lallman Baburam Yadav ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.213 OF 2011, D.I.Desai ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.214 OF 2011, Ramesh V. Shetty ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.215 OF 2011, Nitin Desai ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.216 OF 2011, Balwinder Singh s/o Jaswant Singh ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.217 OF 2011, Shailesh I. Desai ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.218 OF 2011, Abdul Vahid Shaikh ...Appellant vs. 3 ao205group The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent ALONG WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.219 OF 2011, Smt.Vijay Laxmi Jain ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent Mr.Anil Singh i/b Mr.S.Shukla for the appellant Ms K.K.Soraan for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 10,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation. The appeals are preferred by the original plaintiffs challenging the orders of the trial Court by which ad- interim relief granted earlier was vacated. The challenge in the suits is to the action under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act). In the notices of motion taken out by the appellants, a specific prayer for injunction was for restraining the respondent from demolishing the structure as specifically described in the notice under section 351 of the said Act. 2 Initially, the learned trial Judge on 12 th February 2011 granted ad-interim relief by directing the respondent to maintain status quo in respect of the suit premises till the filing of the reply by the respondent- Corporation. On 17 th February 2011, the learned trial Judge passed further order by observing that compliance has not been made with requirements of Rule 3 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. Therefore, the learned Judge declined to continue earlier ad-interim 4 ao205group order of status quo and directed the Appellants to comply with the requirements of Rule 3 of Order VII of the said Code. The learned Judge directed that on failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 3 of Order VII of the said Code, the suits along with the notices of motion will stand dismissed. 3 The learned Judge was dealing with the prayer for ad-interim relief. On 12th February 2011, the learned Judge was of the view that the structures need to be protected. If according to the learned Judge, the suit structures were not properly described, the learned Judge could have clarified the same while granting ad-interim relief by stating that the same will be confined to the structure described in the notice under section 351 of the said Act. At the stage when even the Notice of Motion was not ready for final hearing, the learned Judge could not have directed compliance with the requirements of Rule 3 of Order VII of the said Code and dismissal of the suits as well as the Notices of Motion on failure of the appellants to comply. 4 Hence, impugned orders will have to be quashed and set aside. Hence, appeals are disposed of by passing the following order : i) Impugned orders dated 17 th February 2011 are quashed and set aside. ii)Ad-interim relief granted earlier by the trial Court on 12th February 2011 will continue to operate till the disposal of the Notices of Motion with a clarification that as a result of the said ad- interim relief, it will not be open for the respondent-Corporation to act upon notices under section 351 of the said Act. The protection granted 5 ao205group under the ad-interim order will apply only to the structure described in the notices. iii)The effect of alleged non compliance with rule 3 of Order VII of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 will be considered by the trial Court at the time of hearing of the Notices of Motion. iv)Hearing of the Notices of Motion is expedited. The Notices of Motion shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of twelve weeks from today. v) Civil application nos.313/2011, 314/2011, 315/2011, 316/2011, 317/2011, 318/2011, 319/2011, 320/2011, 321/2011, 322/2011, 323/2011, 324/2011, 325/2011, 326/2011 and 327/2011 for interim relief do not survive and the same are disposed of. JUDGE