-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 476 OF 2009 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 476 OF 2009 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 476 OF 2009 ALONGWITH ALONGWITH ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 579 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 579 OF 2009 CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 579 OF 2009 IN A.O. NO. 476 OF 2009 1. Munira Mahomed Patel & Anr. .. Appellants. (Org.Plaintiffs) V/s. Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (MHADA) and others .. Respondents. (Org.Defendants) --- Mr. Kevik Setalwad i/by Mr. D.H.Shah for the Appellants. Mr. P.G.Lad for the Respondent No.1. Mr.Chirag Balsara i/by M/s. Divya Shah for the Respondents no. 4 to 8. ---- CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 28th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 28th APRIL, 2009 DATED : 28th APRIL, 2009 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This Appeal from Order takes exception to the orders dated 16.03.2009 and 30.03.2009 passed by the learned City Civil Court below Notice of Motion No. 104 of 2009 in short cause Suit no. 531 of 2009. By the said -: 2 :- Notice of Motion the appellants who are original plaintiffs claim interim injunction against respondent no.1 from further proceeding or commencing the work of either structural repairs or reconstruction of the suit buildings. 3. By the order dated 16.03.2009, ad-interim relief was refused to the appellants -plaintiffs and said Notice of Motion was made returnable on 30.03.2009 and by the order dated 30.03.2009 the said Notice of Motion was adjourned to 23.04.2009. A statement was made by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Motion is now kept for orders on 18th of June, 2009. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 made a statement that notice under section 89(1) of the Maharashtra Housing And Area Development Act, 1976 was given on 24th of September 2003 to the appellants owners and the tenants. The N.O.C. to tenants was granted in the year 2006. However, the same was cancelled on 9th of October, 2007. Respondent no.1 thereafter issued work order on 29th of December, 2008 and work of repairing / reconstruction is going on since then. He made a further positive statement that as on today 80% repair/reconstruction work is complete and what remains is only installation of staircase and internal repair work. -: 3 :- 5. In the above facts and circumstances and especially when the notice of motion itself is kept for orders on 18th of June, 2009, I am not inclined to interfere in this Appeal from Order. A.O. is accordingly dismissed. 6. The trial court is, however, directed to hear the appellants’ notice of motion no. 104/2009 on the next date i.e. on 18.06.2009 and thereafter pass appropriate orders. Needless to mention that the notice of motion shall be disposed of independently on its own merit. Mr. Lad, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 makes a statement that the reply to the said notice of motion will be filed in advance with a copy of the same to the appellants plaintiffs. 7. In view of the dismissal of the A.O., nothing survives in the civil application and the same is also stands dismissed as such. (R.V.MORE,J.) .....