1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.6247 OF 2007 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. OF 2007 IN L.C.SUIT NO.2508 OF 2002 The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay, Bombay. .. Appellant V/s. Sonu Sunderam Allagappa Pillai .. Respondent Mr.J.J.Xevier for the Appellant/Applicant-BMC. Mr. M.S.Menon for the Respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : 4TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. P.C. By the above Civil Application, the Applicant prays for the following reliefs : “(a) Pending the hearing and final 2 disposal of the first appeal, papers and proceedings of suit No.2508 of 2002 be called for, (b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the first appeal this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the implementation and execution of the Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in L.C.Suit NO.2508 of 2002 dated 9.1.2007. (c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the first appeal, this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the execution application bearing NO.272 of 2007 in L.C.Suit NO.2508 of 2002 preferred by the respondent in C.R.no.7 of the Bombay City Civil Court.” 2. The Appellants are the original Applicants who are faced with a decree dated 9th January, 2007 passed in the L.C.Suit No.2508 of 2002. The decree permits the Respondent to the above First Appeal to reconstruct the demolished suit premises and to recover the charges for the same from the Applicant above name and also imposed costs of Rs.5000/- on the Applicant and further directs the Municipal Corporation to reimburse the expenses incurred by 3 the Respondent for reconstruction of the suit premises. The Appeal was filed some time in November, 2007 and come for admission on 21st January, 2008 alongwith the above Civil Application for stay. A learned single Judge of this Court had stayed the directions as contained in clauses 2 and 3 of the said order. The reconstruction of the suit premises in terms of prayer clause 1 was therefore not stayed. 3. It appears that even prior to the passing of the said order dated 21st February, 2008, the Respondent had already constructed the suit premises as per the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent. It appears that prior to the filing of the above Appeal in November, 2007 execution proceedings were already filed in the City Civil Court, Bombay in August, 2007 and therefore it is the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent that the stay 4 granted by this Court was in absence of the said fact being brought to the notice of this Court. The learned counsel for the Respondent Shri Menon states that the Respondent would not proceed with the execution proceedings which are pending in the City Civil Court, Bombay pending the hearing and final disposal of the above First Appeal. 4. Since the Respondent herein i.e. the decree holder has already constructed the premises in question and since the stay granted vide order granted 21st February, 2008 is restricted only clauses 2 and 3, in my view, considering the decree passed against the Appellant and the directions issued in terms of clauses 2 and 3, it is clarified that the reconstruction of the suit premises would be subject to the result of the above First Appeal. The statement of Shri Menon made on behalf of the Respondent as recorded here in above is accepted. 5 5. The Civil Application is, accordingly, disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J.]