ao-898-08 ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No. 898 of 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No.1079 of 2008 Mrs Cynthia Dias. .. .. .. Appellant/Petitioner vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..Respondents. Mr Chirag Shah i/b Shri J.J.Shah for the for the Appellant/Applicant. Mr R.A.Malandkar, Advocate for the Respondent-B.M.C. CORAM:A.R.JOSHI,J DATED : 25TH SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C.:- 1. Rule, returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Shri R.A.Malandkar, Advocate appearing for the ao-898-08 Resondent-B.M.C., waives service. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time. 4. The only question involved in the present appeal is regarding demolition of the wall allegedly constructed by the petitioner- plaintiff abutting to her Veranda. According to the B.M.C.-respondent, it was unauthorized construction and required to be demolished and accordingly steps were being taken by issuing requisite notice under Section 354-A of the M.M.C.Act. In fact, such notice was sent in the name of some other lady instead of the name of the present petitioner- plaintiff. However, subsequently in reply to the Advocate’s letter, the B.M.C., has clarified that the said name of one Smt Nancy Pereira was mentioned in the notice as it was the name given by the plaintiff when there was an inspection of such alleged unauthorized construction of wall. Admittedly, after filing of the suit, ad-interim order was refused however it was subsequently reversed and the A.O., was preferred before this Court and the matter was remanded back with directions to the respondent B.M.C., to file its reply, if any, and with directions to the concerned City Civil Court to pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties. It appears that after such remand, again there was no reply filed by the B.M.C., and the only Officer from the B.M.C., was present with ao-898-08 certain case papers in the Court. The Trial Court passed an order as earlier passed rejecting the relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff and hence this second refusal order is challenged in the present appeal. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the issue in the matter is trifle and in fact written statement has also been filed by now and the matter can be expedited. Considering the situation it would be appropriate that the entire suit can be disposed of by the Trial Court within a time bound programme so as to rest the entire controversy which is not of much complication. Hence the present A.O., is accordingly disposed of with the directions to the Trial Court to dispose of the entire suit according to law and specifically within three months from the date of receipt of the order of this Court. In the mean time, both parties are directed to maintain status-quo as of today. 6. With the above directions A.O., is disposed of. In view of this order, the Civil Application No.1079 of 2008 does not survive and same is disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J)