1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 764 OF 2008 ALONGWITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NOS. 765, 766 & 767 of 2008 Bharat C. Dhruv .......Appellant. versus The Mun. Corpn. Of Gr. Bombay........ Respondents. Mr. Bipin Joshi for the Appellant CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 27TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C.: 1. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Plaintiff is only seeking protection in regard to the properties/premises which have been regularised by the Corporation. It is categorically stated that no protection in regard to any portion which is not regularised is being sought in the suit. If this be the position, perusal of the impugned order dated 10th October 2007 clearly reveals that though the court declined to grant ad-interim relief, it did protect the Plaintiff, by further directing the Corporation that it should take care to see that the 2 portion which has been regularised pursuant to Exh.M is not disturbed. As the suit property is protected to the extent it is regularised, no interference is called for. Appeal stands disposed of. (A.P. DESHPANDE, J.)