1 ao82 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.82 OF 2011 Goganbhai Ramsi Chudasama ...Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent Mr.Anil Singh i/b Mr.D.R.Shah for the appellant Ms K.K.Soraan for the respondent-B.M.C. CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : FEBRUARY 14,2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. 2 The appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit for challenging the action under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888. The learned trial Judge has declined to grant ad-interim relief by the impugned order. An affidavit-in-reply of the respondent is taken on record. There are documents on record which prima facie show that the suit structure has been in existence for quite some time. The stand taken by the appellant in reply to the notice under section 351 of the said Act is that the suit structure has been censused in March 1977. He has stated in the reply that he has carried out only plastering and painting work. 2 This is not a case where ad-interim relief could have denied to the appellant considering the documents on record. It is not necessary to record detailed findings as the notice of motion is still pending. 2 ao82 3 Hence, appeal is disposed of by passing the following order : i) Impugned order is quashed and set aside. ii)Till the disposal of the pending notice of motion for injunction, the parties will maintain status quo as of today in respect of the disputed structure. iii)Notice of motion shall be decided expeditiously without being influenced by the tentative observations made by this Court. iv)Appeal is allowed on above terms with no order as to costs. v) Civil application no.117 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE