IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.845 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1016 OF 2008 Mr.Vivek S. Worlikar ...Appellant. v. M.C.G.M. ...Respondents. Mr. A.M.Saraogi a/w Satish Mishra, advs. For the Appellant. Smt.K.K.Soran, adv. For the Respondent/M.C.G.M.. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : MARCH 29, 2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the Parties. 2 The appellant/plaintiff had sought ad-interim relief in notice of motion against the notice under Section 354 of the Municipal Corporation Act. The trial Court in the impugned order dated 29.7.2008 noted that earlier the plaintiff had misrepresented on certain material facts and on the same material , he tried to get interim relief again. It also shows that trial Court only refused ad-interim relief while the notice of motion is still pending. In these circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere in the impugned order. 3 Appeal stands dismissed. 4 At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant makes a statement that plaintiff/appellant will not press for the notice of motion before the trial Court but the trial Court may be directed to expedite the hearing of the suit itself. In view of this, the respondent/defendant shall file written statement before the trial Court within three weeks from this date and the trial Court shall expedite the hearing of the L.C.Suit No. 1787/08 and shall dispose off the same as early as possible and preferably by the end of 31st December, 2010. 5 As the appeal itself is disposed off, civil application no. 1016/08 does not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)