IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 227 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO. 227 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO. 227 OF 2008 WITH WITH WITH CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 277 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 277 OF 2008 APPLICATION NO. 277 OF 2008 BRIJMOHAN GUPTA ..APPELLANT V/S THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS. ..RESPONDENTS Mr. Navin Parekh, Sr. Counsel a/w Mr. Ramakant Yadav for the Appellant. Mrs. Geeta Joglekar, Advocate for BMC - Respondent No. 7. Mr. Shailesh Mane AGP for the respondent no. 2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE: DATE: DATE: 17th March, 2008. 17th March, 2008. 17th March, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The plaintiff filed suit contending that the hoarding raised by the respondent no. 4 is causing obstruction in the hoarding already erected by the : 2 : plaintiff. Therefore the plaintiff sought a direction to the respondent no. 4 for removing or moving aside the hoarding. The trial court issued the notice to the respondent without granting any ad interim relief. The notice of motion is still pending. Whether the hoarding of the respondent no. 4 is really creating any obstruction to the plaintiff, a question of fact which can be looked into and decided only after hearing the parties. Therefore, in my considered opinion, this Appeal may be disposed of with following directions:- 2. The respondents shall file their reply to the notice of motion within 2 weeks from this day and the trial court shall hear and dispose of the notice of motion within 3 weeks thereafter. While deciding the notice of motion on merits the trial court shall not be influenced by any observations made in the order while refusing ad interim relief. The Appeal stands disposed of with aforesaid directions. 3. As Appeal itself is disposed of the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.) (J.H.BHATIA,J.)