ash 1 54ao-70.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 70 OF 2011 Shri David Jaywant Yellery @ Yellerikar. .. Appellant Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. .. Respondent -- Shri P.M. Havnur for the Appellant. Shri Vinod Mahadik for the Respondent. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 6TH APRIL, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. Taken up for final hearing. 2. The Appellant-Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The injunction was for restraining the Respondent- Corporation from demolishing the suit premises which is a Pan Bidi Shop more particularly described in the Plaint. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant pointed out that the photographs of the suit premises taken on 10th January, 2011 were placed on record. He pointed out that the newspaper ash 2 54ao-70.11 “Maharashtra Times” which is seen in the photographs of the suit premises was of 10th January, 2011. He submitted that the finding of the Trial Court in Paragraph 3 of the impugned order that it is not possible to make out the date on which the photographs were taken is factually incorrect. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent submitted that the stand taken by the Respondent that the suit premises has been removed has been accepted by the Trial Court and hence no interference is called for. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant states that the suit premises is still in existence. 4. I have considered the submissions. The first reason given by the learned Trial Judge for declining the relief of ad-interim injunction is that it is not possible to ascertain the date on which the photographs of the suit premises produced by the Appellant were taken. The second reason is the oral statement made by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent that the suit premises has been removed. It is not reflected from the order of the Trial Court that the record of the Corporation was produced before the learned Trial Judge or the action papers were produced before the Trial Court. Moreover, there is no affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent. 5. In my view, in the light of the photographs produced on record, the learned Trial Judge ought to have granted a limited ad- ash 3 54ao-70.11 interim relief. The contention of the Respondent that the Respondent had removed the suit premises will have to be tested on the basis of the material produced on record. Whether the suit premises was removed and was re-constructed are the questions to be decided at the time of final hearing of the Notice of Motion. Suffice it to say that no case was made out for refusal of the ad-interim relief. 6. Hence, I pass the following order. ORDER: (a) The parties will maintain status quo as of today in respect of the suit premises in all respects till the disposal of the Notice of Motion. Hearing of the Notice of Motion is expedited. (b) The Trial Court will not be bound by the tentative observations made by this Court in this order while deciding the Notice of Motion. The issues whether the suit premises was removed by the Respondent and was illegally reconstructed by the Appellant are kept open. ash 4 54ao-70.11 (c) It is made clear that it will be open for the Respondent to file reply to the Notice of Motion. (d) The Appeal is allowed on above terms. (e) Civil Application No.104 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( A.S. OKA, J )