1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.949 OF 2008. WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1149 OF 2008 . Mrs.Neelam Kiran Shah : Appellant. Versus Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai. : Respondents. Shri. Jokhim Reis i/by Shri D C Shah for the Appellant. Shri.N V Walawalkar with Ms.K K Soraan and Shri J J Xavier for the Respondent BMC. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 30, 2009 P.C. 1. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 11th September 2008 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai by which order the ad-interim reliefs were refused to the Appellant/Plaintiff. 2 2. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed L C Suit No.1676 of 2008 in view of the alleged threats of demolition given by the officers and staff of the Respondent-Corporation. The Appellant claims to be in occupation and possession of the entire ground floor premises along with two garage premises admeasuring about 1500 square feet plus each garage of 200 sq.ft. Consisting of B M walls and R C C walls and R C C roof situated at Plot bearing CTS No.266, Plot No.24, Moti Mahal Building, N V P D Scheme, Vile Parle (West) Mumbai. 3. The Respondent No.1 has, in the present Appeal, filed an affidavit of its Asstt.Engineer (Bldg. & Factory) K/West, Shri M B Shinde. To the said Affidavit is annexed a notice dated 13th December 2006 issued by the Respondent-Corporation under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The factum of the receipt of the notice was initially denied by the Plaintiff. However, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff fairly stated that he would proceed on the basis that the said notice has now been received by the plaintiff. The learned counsel further submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act, the Plaintiff 3 would make a representation in respect of the said notice to the competent authority of the Respondent No.1. He undertakes that the said representation would be submitted within a period of two weeks from date. If such a representation is made, the competent authority of the Respondent No.1 would consider the same and dispose it of in accordance with law. 4. As mandated by Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act, pending such consideration, the Respondent No.1 and its officers would not take any precipatative action against the structure in question. In the event the order passed by the competent authority on the representation of the Plaintiff is adverse to the Plaintiff, effect to the same not to be given for a period of two weeks from the receipt of the communication of the said order to enable the Plaintiff to adopt appropriate remedy. 5. In the light of the instant order, the learned counsel for the Plaintiff Shri Shah states that the suit filed by the Plaintiff being L C 4 Suit No.1676 of 2008 asking the Respondent No.1 to follow due process of law has become infructuous and same would be withdrawn by the Plaintiff within a week. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the above Appeal from Order is disposed of. 7. In view of the disposal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.1149 of 2008 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]