1 786.11-ao IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 786 OF 2011 Jai Murlidhar Moolchandani. ... Appellant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ... Respondent. J.P.Sen with Ferzana Behrmkamdin i/b. FZB & Associate for the appellant. Ms.K.K.Soran for the respondent Corporation. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 16th November 2011. P.C. : Since the challenge raised in this appeal from order is in respect of rejection of prayer for ad-interim injunction, the matter can be disposed of conveniently by directing the trial Court to decide pending notice of motion expeditiously. It is the contention of the appellant that the documents at Exh.”B’, “C” and “E” were not available when the matter was heard by the trial Court for grant of ad-interim relief. According to the appellant, there is a permission granted on 17th June 1968 for raising temporary shed on terrace and, as such, raising of the structure cannot be termed as unauthorised. 2. The counsel for the respondent- Corporation suggested that the appellant may present an application for regularisation and the 2 786.11-ao same would be considered in accordance with law. However, the said suggestion put forth is not acceptable to the appellant at this stage. 3. In the circumstances, trial Court is directed to decide the pending notice of motion as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. During pendency and disposal of the notice of motion, no coercive action shall be taken by the respondent- Corporation against the appellant. 4. With the aforesaid direction appeal from order stands disposed of. In view of disposal of appeal from order, pending civil application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)