1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.468 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.568 OF 2009 Ratnakar Mahabala Shetty ....Appellant Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ....Respondent. Mr. R.A. Thorat & Mr. P. J. Thorat, ld.Counsel for the Appellant. Ms.K.K.Sorran, Advocate for Respondent-BMC. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 23rd APRIL, 2009. P.C. Heard, Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Ms. Sorran, learned Counsel for the Respondent-BMC. 2. The Appellant is the Original Plaintiff. He has challenged the notice under section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966 directing him to demolish and restore original position of the suit structure. The Appellant accordingly challenged the said notice by filing L.C. Suit No.720 of 2009 in City Civil Court at Dindoshi (Borivali Division), Goregaon, Mumbai. The Appellant also filed draft notice of 2 motion for restraining the Respondent temporarily by an order of injunction from demolishing or pulling down or removing the suit premises or any portion thereof. The Trial Court by the order impugned in this Appeal from Order refused ad-interim relief of injunction. The notice of motion was directed to be registered and was made returnable on 22nd April, 2009. The statement is made at Bar by Mr.Thorat, learned Counsel, that yesterday the matter at City Civil Court did not reach. In the facts and circumstances mentioned above, I am of the opinion that no purpose will be served either by entertaining this Appeal from Order or by keeping the same pending. The interest of the justice will be subserved if the Appellant’s Notice of Motion is heard expeditiously. 3. The Ad-hoc District Judge-2 & Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai is therefore, directed to dispose of the Appellant’s Notice of Motion in L.C.Suit No.720 of 2009 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within the period of six months from today. 4. Mr. Thorat, learned Counsel for the Appellant, submits that during the pendency and final disposal of the above Notice of Motion, the offending structure may be protected. Ms. Sorran, learned Counsel for the Respondent-BMC, submits that since the Appellant was refused ad-interim relief only on the prima-facie finding about the maintainability of the suit and the offending structure has internal alterations, she has no objection if the said structure is protected during the pendency and final disposal of the Notice of Motion. 3 5. In view of the above facts and circumstances during the pendency and final disposal of the draft Notice of Motion in the L.C.Suit No.720 of 2009, the parties to the suit shall maintain status-quo. Appeal from Order is disposed of, accordingly. 6. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.568 of 2009 will not survive and therefore, the same is disposed of. (R. V. MORE, J.)