1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.379 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.459 OF 2009 Mr.Ralph Miranda .Appellant V/s Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai ..Respondent ---- Mr.Anil R.Mishra for the appellant. Mr.Vinod Mahadik for the respondent/B.M.C. ---- Coram : R.S.MOHITE,J Date : 29.9.2009. PC 1 Heard both sides. In my view, the matter can be disposed off finally at the stage of admission. Hence. Admit. By consent, matter is heard forthwith. 2 This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiff impugning an order dated 31.3.2009. The plaintiff filed a suit being L.C.Suit No.1988/2008 in the City Civil Court for an injunction against the B.M.C. It was the case of the plaintiff that he had carried out certain repairs in the suit property in accordance with the permissions granted and certain orders passed by the Court. In the plaintiff’s Notice of Motion taken out in the said suit, an order came to be passed on 31.10.2008 and ad-interim relief was granted as prayed for in terms of prayer clause-(b) of the Notice of Motion. The record indicates that this injunction was extended from time to time. It appears that a third party made a Chamber summons for 2 intervention and this intervention application came to be allowed by the trial Court. The original plaintiff then filed a Writ petition in this Court and that Writ petition has been admitted and stay has been granted. In the meanwhile, the impugned order dated 31.3.2009 came to be passed and the order stated that since the plaintiff had not carried out the amendment as per order dated 12.3.2009 the ad-interim order dated 31.10.2008 could not be extended. The impugned order states that if the plaintiff fails to comply with the order passed in Chamber summons then the suit will be treated as dismissed. In the present appeal this Court extended the injunction and granted stay of the order dated 31.3.2009 and these orders are operating till today. In my view, as the Writ petition impugning an order dated 12.3.2009 has been admitted and stay of that order is granted, there is no question of carrying out any amendment. It is seen that the order dated 31.10.2008 has been granted on merits and it is desirable that the said Notice of Motion which is at Exhibit-3 should also be disposed off on merits. In the net result, the appeal is allowed. It is directed that the order dated 31.10.2008 will continue during the pendency of Notice of Motion at Exhibit-3. Hearing of the said Notice of Motion is expedited and the said should be disposed off within a period of six months. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.459 OF 2009 As the appeal is disposed off, Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (R.S.MOHITE,J) 3