1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Application No. 325 of 2009 in Appeal from Order No.275 of 2009 in Notice of Motion No.----of 2007 in L.C.Suit No. 84 of 2007 Mr.Shantilal Chhajed ..Appellant vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..Respondent Mr.A.M.Saraogi for appellant Mrs.K.K.Soraan for respondent. CORAM: K.K.TATED J 18th February,2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2 This civil application is preferred by the appellant/original plaintiff for mandatory order and direction against the respondent to forthwith return the original 2 licence/permission to the plaintiff for erection of the hoarding and also for an injunction restraining the respondent from in any manner implementing the notice dated 9th August, 2007. Though the civil application was duly served on the respondent and the respondent has been appearing in the matter since 27th February, 2009, they did not file affidavit in reply. This Court after hearing both sides on 27th February, 2009 passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo. In the present case the appellant filed the L.C.suit in the Bombay City Civil Court challenging the notice dated 9th August, 2007 issued by the respondent Corporation in respect of the suit property. In the said suit the appellant/original plaintiff preferred the notice of motion no. 142 of 2007 for injunction and other reliefs. The said Notice of Motion was dismissed on the ground that the appellant failed to 3 produce cogent evidence to show that the respondent Corporation granted any permission to the plaintiff for erecting the said hoarding. 3 The learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation relied on the policy issued by Corporation on 10th January, 2008 under sections 328 and 328A of the B.M.C.Act for grant of permission for display of sky signs and advertisement. The learned Counsel for the respondent Corporation submitted that as per the policy guidelines issued on 10th January 2008 the appellant was not entitled to any relief from this Court. Admittedly, the respondent Corporation has failed to file its affidavit in reply to the civil application though the respondent is appearing in the present matter since 2009. Considering these facts the status quo order passed by this Court on 27th February 2009 needs to be continued till hearing and final 4 disposal of the appeal from order. Civil Application stands disposed of accordingly. (K.K.TATED J.)