- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW APPLICATION NO.03 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.03 OF 2005 APPLICATION NO.03 OF 2005 IN IN IN APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER FROM ORDER FROM ORDER NO.296 OF 2005 NO.296 OF 2005 NO.296 OF 2005 Dhiraj Premji Gala ...Appellant vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Respondent Mr.A.Y.Sakhare with Mr.P.M.Shah for the Appellant Ms Geeta Jogalekar for Respondent-Corporation. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : JUNE 29,2005. : JUNE 29,2005. : JUNE 29,2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Not on board. 1. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and Counsel appearing for Respondent-Corporation. 2. The learned Counsel for Respondent -Corporation states that the application dated 24th February 2005 made by the Architect of the Applicant could not be decided as the Architect has not complied with certain requisitions which are made by the concerned Officer of the Respondent-Corporation. 3. Without going into the merits of the contentions raised in this Application, time granted to the Respondent-Corporation by the order dated 9th March 2005 can be extended within which time the Respondent-Corporation will have to comply with the earlier order. - 2 - 4. Hence the Review Application is disposed of by directing that, i) Time for deciding the Application dated 24th February 2005 made by the Architect of the Applicant is extended by further period of four weeks from today. No further extension will be granted. Consequently, the parties are directed to maintain status quo as of today for a period of six weeks from today. ii) Review Application is disposed of in above terms. . Parties to act upon an authenticated copy of this order. JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE