1 ao522-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION rpa APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.522 OF 2010 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.671 OF 2010 Dattani P. Bldg. & Ors. .. Appellants V/s. M/s. N.K. Sodhi & Co. & Ors. .. Respondents ..... Mr. M. V. Holmagi for the appellants. Mr. Rajiv Narula i/b. M/s. Jhangiani Narula & Associates for respondent No.1. Mrs. K. K. Soraan for respondent No.3. ..... CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : MARCH 9, 2011. P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.3. This Appeal is directed against the order dated 3rd May, 2010 passed by the trial Court by which prayer for ad-interim relief made by the applicants in a Notice of Motion has been rejected. 2. By order dated 12th May, 2010, this Court directed the respondents not to construct any building on a space which is reserved for R.G.4. 2 ao522-10 This Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to appoint an Architect from the Panel with a direction to the Architect to submit a report. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has certain grievances about the report submitted by the Architect which is on the record of this Appeal. He submitted that another independent Architect will have to be appointed to do the same job. He submitted that notice to produce the original documents and the original plans was issued, but the same have not been produced. 3. It is not disputed that the Notice of Motion for interim relief is pending before the trial Court. If the appellants are not satisfied with the report of the Architect or appellants have any objection regarding the report of the Architect, the appellants can always apply in the Notice of Motion for appointment of another Architect. The appellant can call upon the third respondent to produce the original plan as well as other documents at the time of hearing of the Notice of Motion. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants makes a grievance that the respondent No.1 has committed breach of the ad- interim relief granted by this Court. However, in this Appeal the said allegation cannot be dealt. The appellants will have to take out 3 ao522-10 appropriate proceedings in that behalf. 5. As the main Notice of Motion is pending, suffice to say that this Appeal need not be kept pending and the same deserves to be disposed of by continuing the ad-interim relief granted on 12th May, 2010. Hence, Appeal is disposed of by passing following order : :: O R D E R :: i. Ad-interim relief granted by this Court on 12th May, 2010 will continue to operate till the final disposal of the Notice of Motion. ii. Hearing of the Notice of Motion is expedited. iii. It will be open for the appellants to make appropriate prayers before the trial Court in the light of the observations made by this Court in this order. iv. All contentions of the parties are kept open. 4 ao522-10 v. The report of the Architect submitted to this Court shall be forwarded to the trial Court in a sealed envelop. The report shall be taken in the record of the suit. vi. Civil Application No.671 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE