1 AO-632-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 632 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 866 OF 2011 Shirish Gupte ... Appellant vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Respondent Mr. P.A.Thorat i/b. Mr. P.J.Thorat,Advocate, for the appellant Mrs. K.K.Soraan, Advocate for the respondent - MCGM. CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 27th June, 2011. P.C. 1. It appears that Notice of Motion was taken out by the plaintiff/appellant against the service of notice under Sec. 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The plaintiff/appellant had disputed that any construction was in progress. It appears that on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, no reply was filed to the said Notice of Motion inspite of opportunity given for that purpose. The trial Court finally rejected the Notice of Motion even without any reply. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that the structure in 2 AO-632-11.sxw dispute is still in existence and it has not been demolished. In view of the circumstances, the learned Counsel for the Municipal Corporation makes a statement that the Municipal Corporation shall file written statement in the suit and the suit itself may be decided on its own merits. 3. In view of the above, the Appeal and the Application stand disposed of with the following directions :- The Respondent/Defendant shall file written statement within six weeks and the trial Court shall expedite the hearing and dispose of L.C. Suit No. 686 of 2010. Pending the suit, the parties shall maintain status quo. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)