1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 451 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 544 OF 2009 Our Home Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. .... Appellant Versus Bharat C. Dhruv & Anr. ....Respondents Ms. Nilima Sanglikar for the Appellant. Mr.Bipin Joshi for Respondent No.1 . Ms. K.K.Sorran for Respondent No.2-BMC. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 20TH APRIL, 2009. P.C. Heard, Ms.Sanglikar, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr.Joshi, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Ms.Sorran, learned Counsel for Respondent No.2-BMC. 2. The Appellant is Original Defendant No.2 and Respondent No.2 is Original Defendant No.1 and Respondent No.1 is Original Plaintiff in L.C.Suit No.205 of 2009. The Suit was filed challenging the notice under section 351 of the B.M.C. Act. The notice structure is the unauthorised extension to the flat in part terrace of the building. It was specific case of Respondent No.1/Original Plaintiff that the Appellant/Original Defendant 2 No.2 – Society passed an Resolution dated 2nd November, 1980 thereby permitted predecessor in title of the Respondent No.1 to make construction in question. In pursuance of this Resolution, a written permission was granted by the concerned department of the B.M.C. on 10th January, 1984. The Trial Court, accepted the case of Respondent No.1/Original Plaintiff, after perusal of Resolution dated 2nd November, 1980 and permission dated 10th January, 1984. The Appellant/Original Defendant No.2 disputed the legality of resolution and permission mentioned above. However, Respondent No.2/ Original Defendant No.1 – BMC failed to file any reply to the Notice of Motion filed by the Respondent No.1 - original Plaintiff. Taking over all view of the matter, the learned Judge allowed the Notice of Motion and granted injunction in favour of the Respondent No.1/Original Plaintiff restraining Respondent No.2-BMC from demolishing the suit structure in pursuance of 351 notice dated 12th August, 2006. The learned Trial Judge granted the aforesaid protection to the Respondent No.1/Original Plaintiff for the period of six months or till the decision in the Suit whichever is earlier. In the above facts and circumstances I am not inclined to interfere in the proceedings, however to meet the ends of the justice, the hearing of the Suit filed by the Respondent No.1/Original Plaintiff deserves to be expedited. I therefore, dispose of the above Appeal from Order by passing the following order:- 1. Appeal from Order No. 451 of 2009, is dismissed. 2. The learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2 & Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Borivali Division, 3 Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai is directed to dispose of the L.C.Suit No.205 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within the period of six months from the date of the impugned order. 3. The learned Counsel for the respective parties assures that they will co-operate with the hearing of the Suit and will not claim unnecessary adjournments. 3. The learned Counsel for Respondent No.2, at this stage submits that Respondent No.2 -BMC as on today has not filed Written Statement and seeks four weeks time to file Written Statement. Mr. Joshi, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/Original Plaintiff has no objection if four weeks time is granted to Respondent No.2- BMC to file their Written Statement. 4. Needless to mention that the observations made in this Order are prima-facie observations and the Trial Court shall dispose of the suit independently on its own merit without being influenced by the said observations. 5. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.544 of 2009 will not survive and therefore, the same is disposed of. 4 (R. V. MORE, J.)