1 867.11ao.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Appeal from Order No. 867 of 2011 IN Notice of Motion No. 1274 of 2011 IN Short Cause Suit No. 944 of 2011 Ramkaran Khurmuri Yadav ...Appellant v/s. The Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabilitation Authority & ors. ...Respondents Mr. P.K. Dhakepalkar, Sr. Counsel i/b. S.P. Munghate for the appellant. Mr. D. Nalawade for respondents 2 and 3. Mr. A.R.Mishra for respondent no.4. CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. 23rd September, 2011 PC: The challenge raised in the Appeal from Order is in respect of refusal by the Judge, City Civil Court to grant ad-interim relief in Draft Notice of Motion presented in SC Suit No. 944/2011. The learned Judge of the trial Court refused to grant ad-interim relief by virtue of order passed on 25th May, 2011. The Notice of Motion presented by the appellant-plaintiff is yet pending for final disposal. 2. In these circumstances, without going into the merits of the controversy involved in the matter, the ends of justice would be met if the trial Court is directed to decide Notice of Motion as expeditiously as possible and within specified period. 2 867.11ao.sxw 3. It is also made clear that the Judge of the City Civil Court who would be deciding the Notice of Motion shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by him while refusing to grant interim-relief and shall consider the application on its own merits and in accordance with law after considering the submissions which would be advanced by the respective Counsels appearing for the parties. The trial Court is, therefore, directed to decide pending Notice of Motion in SC Suit No. 944/2011 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 12 weeks from today. 4. Appeal from Order stands disposed of. 5. In view of disposal of Appeal from Order, pending Civil Application do not survive and stand disposed of. (R.M.BORDE, J)