:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1332 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1644 OF 2008 Ramkali Ajit Dube .. Appellant. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay .. Respondents. Mr.P.M.Havnur for the appellant. Mr.A.C.Singh a/w J.J.Xavier for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 23RD JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 23RD JANUARY, 2009. DATED : 23RD JANUARY, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal from order is directed against the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the city civil court refusing to grant ad-interim injunction prayed by the appellant. In notice of motion No.4848 of 1999 the appellant prayed for injunction restraining the respondent-corporation from acting upon or implementing the impugned notice dated 4.12.2008 issued under section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act in respect of the suit structure, namely, Ramkali Niwas abutting Nargis Dutt Road, besides 72 Gautam Apartments, Khar (West) in the same :2: :2: :2: line of the said Gautam Apartments admeasuring 10 sq. mtrs. made of brick masonary walls and cement sheet roof situate at Pali Hill, Nargis Dutt Road, Khar (W), Mumbai. 3. Mr.Havnur, learned counsel for the appellant at the outset invited my attention to the order passed by this court in appeal from order No.388 of 2000 which was filed by the corporation against the order dated 4.4.2000 passed by the city civil court allowing the notice of motion filed by the present appellant seeking similar reliefs. The relevant portion of the order reads thus: ".... .... 3. The appeal is therefore admitted. Both the counsel are heard who have made their submissions as above. 4. Having heard both the learned counsel, in my view, the impugned order is required to be substituted by an appropriate order which will be as follows: The Appellants will be at liberty to remove the structure of the respondent as and when they are in a position to widen the road on the rear side of the structure, i.e. on the side wherein a strip of land behind the structure is presently in the control and custody of a housing society." 4. Mr.Singh, learned counsel for the corporation, on instructions, submits that after the aforesaid order passed by this court on 20.9.2000 :3: :3: :3: they have taken steps for widening the road. According to Mr.Singh all adjacent societies have surrendered the portion of the land in their possession for construction of the road and they have completed construction work except the portion where the wall of the society touches the suit structure. He further submits that the corporation is prepared to commence the remaining work of removing the compound wall and the gate of the society which is touching the suit structure. In view of the statement made by Mr.Singh, Mr.Havnur, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is prepared to file an undertaking in this court that moment the wall and the gate of the society touching the suit structure is removed by the corporation, the appellant shall remove the suit structure at their own costs within a period of one week. The statements of Mr.Singh and Mr.Havnur are recorded and accepted. The appellant to file an undertaking as aforementioned in this court within a period of one week from today. If the appellant fails to file the undertaking it is open to the corporation to remove the structure with the police aid, if necessary. This order shall not preclude the appellant from approaching the concerned authorities seeking allotment of an alternate premises, if they are entitled for the same. If the appellant make such :4: :4: :4: representation, the concerned officer of the corporation shall consider the representation sympathetically and as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of making such representation. If the appellant has already made representation in past he may file fresh representation with a copy of his earlier representation. It is clarified that the corporation is allowed to remove the gate and the wall of the society touching the suit structure and while doing so, if any damage is likely to be caused to the suit structure, they will be allowed to do so with prior intimation to the appellant. The appeal from order is disposed of. . Consequently, the civil application is also disposed of. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)