1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1257 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1542 OF 2008 Deepti Mukti Shakti Co-operative Housing ..Appellant Society Limited V/s The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..Respondent Mr.Prashant Surve, Advocate, for the appellant Smt.K.K.Sooran, Advocate, for the respondent-MCGM CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 2ND FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. . Not on board. 2. Mentioned. 3. Taken on board. 2 4. This appeal takes exception to the Order dated 5th December, 2008, passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2, Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Goregaon, Mumbai by which order ad-interim reliefs were refused to the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff is a co-operative society, which has a health club for its members. The appellant/plaintiff was issued notice under Section 351 of the BMC Act in respect of the Health Club. The said notice was replied by the appellant/plaintiff. The appellant/plaintiff did not receive any reply from the respondent but an order of demolition came to be passed on 2nd December, 2008. The appellant/plaintiff thereafter filed L.C. Suit No.2218 of 2008. In the said suit, the appellant/plaintiff filed Notice of Motion for temporary injunction restraining the respondent-Municipal Corporation from implementing the said notice issued under Section 351 of the BMC Act dated 20th October, 2008 as also the order of demolition. 5. The appellant/plaintiff moved the Notice of Motion for ad- interim reliefs which came to be rejected by impugned order dated 5th December, 2008. The Trial Court recorded a prima facie finding that 3 the said structure of the Health Club was unauthorized and illegal. 6. It appears that after the Order dated 5th December, 2008, the appellant/plaintiff has applied for regularisation of the said structure by application dated 17th December, 2008 made through its Architects & Engineers Atul Situt & Associates. The said application is under consideration of the respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff has produced the noting of the E.E.B.P (W.S) K.Ward, in which noting the officer has opined that the work of which regularisation is sought is of an approvable nature and has accordingly forwarded the papers to the Law Officer of the respondent-Municipal Corporation. Therefore, relying upon the said papers it is contended on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff that the proposal for regularisation submitted by the appellant/plaintiff is under consideration and that the appellant/plaintiff is hopeful of success. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent has seen the papers produced by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff. She states that the application for regularisation would be considered 4 and disposed of by the competent authority of the respondent -MunicipalCorporation within a period of four weeks from date. 8. In view of the fact that the application of the appellant/plaintiff for regularisation is under consideration, the respondent not to take any steps pursuant to the said notice dated 20th October, 2008 and order of demolition dated 2nd December, 2008 pending such consideration. 9. In the event the competent authority passes an adverse order against the appellant/plaintiff, the same not to be implemented for a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of the order by the appellant/plaintiff. 10. In the light of the above, the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff seeks withdrawal of the Appeal from Order and makes a statement that the suit being L.C.Suit No.2218/2008 would also be withdrawn within a period of one week from date. 5 (R.M.SAVANT, J.)