1 58 fa.1490.11 ors ndm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 1490 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3000 OF 2011 Sudhirkumar Shrikrishna Mundra. ... Appellant Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ... Respondent AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3803 OF 2011 Ramkumar Jalan Public Charitable Trust and others. ... Applicants Versus Sudhirkumar Shrikrishna Mundra and another. ... Respondents ----- Mr. D.S. Mishra i/b Mr. I.A.Siddique for the Appellant and the Applicant in Civil Application No.3000 of 2009. Mr. Vinod Mahadik for the BMC. Mr. J.G.Damani for the Applicants (Intervenors) in Civil Application No. 3803 of 2011. ----- CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 13 th September, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant and 2 58 fa.1490.11 ors the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent – Corporation and the learned counsel appearing for the Intervenors. 2 Considering the nature of the impugned order, the appeal is forthwith taken up for final disposal. 3 The Appellant – Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the notice issued under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 and the order passed thereon are illegal. A prayer for perpetual injunction was also made. The Appellant – Plaintiff filed a notice of motion for interim relief, which was moved for grant of ad- interim relief. While considering the prayer for grant of ad-interim relief, the learned trial Judge by the impugned order has not only dismissed the notice of motion, but has also disposed of the suit. 4 The suit was at the stage of consideration of the prayer for ad-interim relief. While deciding the prayer for ad-interim relief, the learned trial Judge has adopted a procedure which is not at all know to 3 58 fa.1490.11 ors the law. The learned Judge could not have disposed of the suit itself while deciding the prayer for ad-interim relief. The approach of the trial Court is completely illegal and perverse. It must be noted here that this Court has set aside similar orders passed by the same Court in atleast three to four appeals. 5 Hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The suit and the notice of motion will have to be restored. As far as the Intervenors are concerned, it will be open for them to apply before the trial Court for intervention and/or impleading themselves as parties to the suit. 6 Hence, I pass the following order: i. The impugned order dated 15 th June, 2011 is quashed and set side. The suit filed by the Appellant and the notice of motion filed therein are restored ; ii. The learned trial Judge is directed to take up the 4 58 fa.1490.11 ors notice of motion for consideration of ad-interim relief within a period of four weeks from today ; iii. It will be open for the Applicants in the Civil Application No.3803 of 2011 to make an application before the trial Court for intervention and/or for impleadment. If such application is made, the trial Court shall decide the same in accordance with law ; iv. The ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 24 th June, 2011 will continue to operate for a period of four weeks from today. It is made clear that the prayer for ad-interim relief shall be considered by the trial Court without being influenced by grant of limited ad-interim relief by this Court ; v. The appeals is partly allowed on above terms with no order as to costs ; vi. All the contentions of the parties on merits of the suit are kept open ; and 5 58 fa.1490.11 ors vii. The Civil Application No.3000 of 2011 and the Civil Application No.3803 of 2011 do not survive and the same are disposed of. [ A.S.OKA, J ]