1 ao482 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.482 OF 2010 Piyush Kantilal Chheda ...Appellant vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Anr. ...Respondents Mr.M.P.Vashi for the appellant Ms K.K.Soraan for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MARCH 16,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2 The challenge in this appeal is to the order of the trial Court declining to grant ad-interim relief. The challenge in the suit filed by the appellant is to the notice under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888 and the order passed thereon. The only ground on which ad-interim relief is declined is that the documents which were produced before the Municipal Corporation along with the reply to the notice under section 351 were not placed on record of the suit. Only on this ground, the prayer for ad-interim relief could not have been declined. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the structure in dispute is still in existence. The learned counsel for the respondent has no instructions in this behalf. The statement made by the learned counsel for the appellant is accepted. 2 Notice of Motion is still pending. Hence, till the 2 ao482 disposal of the Notice of Motion, status quo as of today will have to be maintained. 3 Accordingly, appeal is disposed of by passing the following order : i) Pending Notice of Motion shall be decided by the trial Court as expeditiously as possible. Till the disposal of pending Notice of Motion, parties will maintain status quo as of today in respect of the disputed structure. ii)The Notice of Motion shall be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the grant of ad- interim relief by this Court. iii)There will be no order as to costs. iv)Civil application no. 627 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE