1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1044 OF 2008 ALONG WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1270 OF 2008 Ravi Hassanand Vazirani & anr. ... Appellants v/s Municipal Corpn. Of Gr. Mumbai ... Respondent Mr.R.A.Thorat for the appellants. Mrs.K.K.Soraan i/by Mr.R.A.Malandkar for the respondent. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 1ST FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been filed against the refusal of interim relief to the appellants by the impugned order. The suit has been filed pursuant to a notice being issued to the appellant under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. That notice was issued on 15.4.2006. It appears that ad-interim relief was granted to the appellant in the year 2006. However, by the impugned order dated 17.9.2008, the ad-interim relief was vacated and the motion 2 was dismissed. On 10.10.2008, this Court directed that the ad-interim relief granted by the Trial Court should continue pending admission. 2. Mr.Thorat appearing for the appellants submits that the trial has proceeded substantially and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the respondent if the ad-interim relief granted earlier is continued during the pendency of the suit. 3. The learned advocate for the Corporation is not able to controvert this fact that the trial has proceeded substantially. 4. Hence, in my view, it would be appropriate to continue the status-quo as of today till the hearing and final disposal of the suit. 5. Appeal from order disposed of accordingly along with the civil application. ..... 3