IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO 208 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO 246 OF 2009 Kitkat (SRA) Co-operative Housing Society Ltd and Others .. Appellants V/s. Stephen alias Steven Gerard Fernandez .. Respondent Shri. R.A. Thorat and Shri. K.P. Mali for the Appellants Shri. D.S. Sakhalkar for the Respondent Coram : R.M. Savant, J. Date : 16th February, 2009. P.C.: 1. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 05.02.2009 by the Learned Judge of City Civil Court by which order the ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) of the Notice of Motion was granted. Said prayer clause (a) is reproduced hereunder: “That pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass temporary / ad interim order and injunction restraining the Defendants and each one of them, jointly and severally, by themselves, their agents, servants or hirelings and / or 1 any person or persons claiming through and under them from dispossessing the Plaintiff from the suit premises; namely Room nos. G-1, G-2 and G-3 and or preventing him from taking access to and exit from the suit premises or his servants, contractors or workmen at any time of the day or night save and except by following due process of law.” 2. The Plaintiff i.e the Respondent No. 1 herein is the developer appointed by the Appellants herein for implementation of slum redevelopment scheme on Plot No. 12, 16th Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050. Though in the Notice of Motion, the premises have been identified as G1, G2 an G3, significantly in the plaint, there is no description of the suit premises and prayers in the said suit are general in nature. According to the Appellants, the premises G1, G2 and G3 are earmarked for the purposes of balwadi, welfare center and society's office which is required under the relevant Development Control Regulation 33(10) of D.C.Rs. 1991. Reliance is placed by the Appellants on the final allotment letter dated 09.12.2005 in that behalf. On the other hand, it is the case of the Plaintiffs that in terms of sanctioned plan, the said premises G1, G2 and G3 forms part of the saleable component. 2 3. The Appellants have questioned the very maintainability of the suit on the ground that looking to the prayers sought, the suit is barred under Section 42 of Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, clearance and Re- development) Act 1971. As indicated above, the Appeal challenges the order granting ad-interim reliefs in respect of the premises being G1, G2 and G3, as also restraining the Defendants from preventing the Plaintiff from entering into the premises wherein Slum Rehabilitation Scheme is implemented. 4. The Ld. Counsel for the Appellants fairly state that they have no objection to the Plaintiff entering the premises wherein the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme is being implemented but their grievance is only as regards the ad-interim reliefs in respect of the premises bearing nos. G1, G2 and G3, as the same are earmarked for the purposes of balwadi, welfare center and society' s office. 5. Since the Notice of Motion is as yet pending and since the Appellants are yet to file a reply, in my view, interest of justice would be served by directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of premises G1, G2 and G3 and directing the Motion to be disposed of within a particular time 3 frame. Hence, the following order: O R D E R i. Notice of Motion filed by the Plaintiff be heard and disposed of by the Trial Court within 12 weeks from the date of this order. ii. The Appellants i.e the Defendants to file affidavit in reply within three weeks. Rejoinder if any is to be filed by the Plaintiff within two weeks thereafter. iii.Pending the hearing and final disposal of Motion, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the premises being G1, G2 and G3. It is clarified that the Plaintiff would not be entitled to carry out any internal work in the said premises. iv.Appeal is accordingly disposed of in the above terms. In view of disposal of Appeal, Civil Application does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. (R.M. Savant, J) 4 5