1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.156 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICTION NO.195 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.156 OF 2008 Lalchand B. Jhamnani .....Appellant V/s. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.P.Kanuga, for the appellant. Mr.Vinod Mahadik, for respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr.G.S.Bhat, for respondent No.3. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2009 P.C. 1. This appeal from order is preferred against the order passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court below Notice of Motion No. 3519 of 2002 by which the learned Judge has rejected the prayer for interim injunction by giving detailed reasons. Initially, in the said notice of motion, ad-interim relief was granted in favour of the plaintiff on 12-09-2002 by holding that the plaintiff is in occupation of the shop No. 140 prior to 11-05-1965. According to the plaintiff, the Corporation is trying to dispossess him as he is in lawful possession of the same. It is the case of the plaintiff that without taking appropriate proceedings, he 2 cannot be evicted from the disputed land. 2. The suit was resisted by the Corporation as well as defendant No.3 on various grounds. According to the corporation, the plaintiff is not in lawful possession of the land and he has no right to bring this suit and there is no substance in the suit. The learned Judge after giving detailed reasons came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has no prima facie case and ad-interim order granted earlier is vacated by the trial court. The said order is impugned at the instance of the original plaintiff by way of this appeal from order. 3. Initially, this Court has passed an order of maintaining status quo. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit is now ready for hearing and infact it is part-heard and evidence is being recorded regularly. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondents at length. Though, prima facie the learned trial judge has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the injunction prayed for cannot be granted, in my view, since the suit has already reached hearing and the suit is of 2003, it would be just and proper to direct the learned trial judge to dispose of the suit latest by 30-11-2009. The learned counsel for the appellant appearing in the matter submitted that their counter part will cooperate with the hearing and any unwarranted adjournments will not be asked for. Under the 3 circumstances, this appeal from order is disposed of by directing the parties to maintain status quo prevailing as on today till the suit is decided. Writ to be sent to the learned Trial Judge immediately without any further delay. In the meanwhile, if any N.O.C., is required by defendant No.3, it will be open to him to apply for such N.O.C. from the competent authorities so that in case the suit is decided in his favour, it may not take further time to get the N.O.C. However, such N.O.C. shall be subject to the rights and contentions of both the parties. It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion in any manner and trial court shall decide the suit in accordance with law. 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.195 of 2008 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)