1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2009 Jitendra Chauhan : Appellant versus Kandivali Metal Works & ors. : Respondents. Shri. Girin N. Pandit for the Appellant. Shri Rajesh Shah i/by M/s.Bankin Desai and Co. for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 and 5. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 12, 2009 P.C. 1. The above Appeal is directed against the refusal of Ad- interim relief in Notice of Motion Exhibit-1 Colly filed by the Appellant in the suit filed by him being Short Cause Suit No.2193 of 2008. By the said Notice of Motion an injunction was sought against the Respondents from putting up construction on the plot bearing CTS Nos.17-A and 17-B. 2 2. The said construction is being put up under the SRA Scheme being implemented under the Development Control Regulation, 1991. The Respondents have the letter of intent from the SRA, the permission of the tree authority of the MGCM as also the plan sanctioned by the SRA. It appears that the Plaintiff has also consented by signing the NOC on 26th October 2007. 3. The trial Court has taken the aforesaid permission etc into consideration and rejected the application for ad interim relief. 5. In my view, no case for interference with the impugned order is made out. Looking to the relief sought in the said Notice of Motion, the hearing of the said Notice of Motion Exhibit-1 Colly is expedited and is directed to be disposed of within eight weeks from date. Needless to say that the construction, if any, put up by the Respondents on the said plots in question would be subject to the result of the said Notice of Motion. 3 6. With the above directions the above Appeal is disposed of. 7. In view of the disposal of the above Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and the same is disposed of as such. 8. Needless to say that the Notice of Motion would be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. [R.M.SAVANT, J]