1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.770 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1017 OF 2011 Vinod A. Mhatre ...Appellant. v. M.C.G.M. ...Respondents. Mr. Pande i/by Mr. A.M.Pande ,advs. For the Appellant. Ms K.K.Soran,adv. For the Respondent/BMC. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Original plaintiff has filed this appeal against the refusal of ad-interim relief pending the notice of motion. Admittedly, plaintiff has certain hoardings on Madam Cama Road near the Air India Building since the year 1973 or so. Size of the hoarding was 40 ft X 10 ft. As per certain policy decision, it became necessary that distance between two hoardings should not be less than 20 mtrs.. As per that policy decision on 23.6.2010, Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Special) passed an order requiring the plaintiff to modify the size of the existing hoarding from 40 ft X 10 ft to 20 ft X 20 ft. so that distance of the hoarding from another hoarding would be not less than 20 mtrs. Compliance report was to be submitted within 2 three months. According to the plaintiff, they complied and modified the size of the hoarding keeping distance of 20 mtrs. from the hoarding of another hoarding of M/s. Hoardings. Later on, M/s Hoardings also made modification in their hoarding and changed the location. As a result, distance was reduced to less than 20 mtrs. Municipal Corporation issued a notice on 15.3.2011 to the plaintiff contending that they had not complied with the policy decision and distance between the two hoardings was only 13 mtrs. and they were required to show cause as to why the permit or license for that hoarding should not revoked. That was replied and the order was passed to remove the hoarding. That order was challenged in the suit wherein the notice of motion was taken out. 2 According to the plaintiff, mis-chief has been played by M/s Hoardings, which is competitor of the plaintiff in business. The learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation tried to contend that contentions of the plaintiff are not true and there are photographs, etc. to falsify his claim. However, it appears that no reply has been filed before the trial Court and notice of motion is still pending. Dispute in this matter can be resolved only after reply is filed and proper material is placed before the Court. As there is allegation against M/s Hoardings of playing mis-chief and as whatever order is passed is likely to affect rights of M/s 3 Hoardings also, it will be necessary that the M/s Hoarding be impleaded as defendant in the suit. In view of the above circumstances, in my opinion, some protection will have to be given to the plaintiff till the notice of motion is decided. 3 Therefore, appeal is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside. Plaintiff shall implead M/s Hoardings as defendant in the suit and make the amendment within two weeks and serve notice to the newly added defendant within two weeks thereafter. Defendant shall file reply to the notice of motion and/or written statement within four weeks thereafter and the trial Court shall hear the parties and decide the notice of motion within four weeks thereafter. Till decision of the notice of motion, the status-quo in respect of structure and the hoarding shall be maintained but the plaintiff shall not be allowed to display any advertisement on the hoarding. 4 Appeal and the application stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)