ash 1 ao-492.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 492 OF 2011 Sandipkumar Jain & Anr. .. Appellants Vs The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents -- Shri Kunal Cheema i/by Shri Datta Mane for the Appellants. Smt. K.K. Soraan for the Respondents. Shri Cyrau Ardeshir and Shri Neveille Mukerji i/by M/s. Wadia Ghandy for caveators. -- CORAM ; A.S. OKA, J DATED : 6TH MAY, 2011 P.C. . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Appellants, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents and the learned counsel appearing for the Caveators. It is not in dispute that third party caveators have been permitted to be impleaded as the party Defendants to the suit. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants-Plaintiffs states that the Appellants do not desire to challenge the said order and they intend to carry out amendment for impleading third parties as the party Defendants to the suit. Statement is accepted. 2. As the third party Caveators have been permitted to be ash 2 ao-492.11 added as defendants to the suit, the Appellants are directed to implead third party Caveators as the parties to this Appeal. Amendment to be carried out within a period of five weeks from today. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the added parties states that a reply will be filed to the Notice of Motion and therefore, instead of keeping the Appeal pending and delaying the hearing of the Notice of Motion, the learned Trial Judge be directed to decide the Notice of Motion in a time bound schedule and till the Notice of Motion is heard, the disputed structures be protected. I have also heard learned counsel appearing for the Respondents BMC. 4. The suggestion made by the learned counsel appearing for the added parties deserves to be accepted as the main Notice of Motion is still pending. 5. Accordingly, I pass the following order. ORDER (a) The impugned judgment and order dated 15th April, 2011 is set aside by the consent of the added Defendants. ash 3 ao-492.11 (b) It is made clear that no adjudication has been made by this Court on the merits of the pending Notice of Motion and the suit. (c) The Notice of Motion shall be heard and finally decided as expeditiously as possible and in any case preferably on or before 30th June, 2011. (d) Till the disposal of the Notice of Motion, the Appellants and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation will maintain status quo as of today in respect of the alleged offending structures. (e) The Appeal from Order is disposed of on above terms. (f) Civil Application No. 685 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. ( A.S. OKA, J )