1 AO-652-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 652 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 882 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2011 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 2594 OF 2011 Shri albert S/o Sabastian Nadar ... Appellant vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Respondents Shri R.D.Soni, i/b. Mr. S.N.Gawade, Advocate for the appellant. Smt. K.K.Soraan,Advocate, for the respondent MCGM. Shri K.M.Vhora, Sub-Engineer is present in Court. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 13th July, 2011. P.C. 1. This appeal is file by the plaintiff/appellant against refusal of ad- interim relief in a Notice of Motion taken out in Suit No.2594 of 2011. The impugned order dated 30.11.2010 shows that on behalf of B.M.C. a statement was made that after considering the reply of the plaintiff, appropriate order will be passed on the notice issued to him. In view of this statement, the trial Court observed that the apprehension of demolition without following due process of law is ill-founded. The learned Counsel pointed out that by a communication 2 AO-652-11.sxw dated 14.5.2011, the respondent informed the plaintiff that he had challenged the notice but the Court had refused to grant injunction in his favour and in view of that, he should demolish the structure. It indicates that the Municipal Authorities had not considered the reply nor the order was passed on merits. 2. The learned Counsel for the Corporation points out that the order was already passed on 30.11.2010 for demolition. After perusal of that order, I find that when the concerned officer allegedly went to the site for inspection, neither the plaintiff nor any of his representative was present. It appears that on that day, i.e. 30.11.2010, the plaintiff was present in Court when the above referred statement was made by the Advocate for the Municipal Corporation. In his absence, the officer of the Municipal Corporation went to the spot and as he was not there, he passed the order as if the plaintiff had nothing to say nor he had produced any documents. It appears that opportunity of filing reply, production of documents and hearing was not given to the plaintiff. 3. In view of the above circumstances, after some discussion at the Bar, the learned Counsel for the respondent, on instructions from the concerned officer, who is present in the Court, makes a statement that the officer will recall the order dated 30.11.2010 as well as the communication dated 14.5.2011 and 3 AO-652-11.sxw shall after giving due opportunity to the plaintiff to file reply and necessary documents, would pass the order on the notice under Section 354A. The statement is accepted. 4. In view of this statement, the learned Counsel or the plaintiff/appellant seeks to withdraw the suit, appeal as well as the application. The appeal and the Application stand disposed of as withdrawn. The parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the suit structure till the respondent passes appropriate order on the impugned notice and for two weeks from the date of communication of the order. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)