- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.255 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.255 OF 2004 APPLICATION NO.255 OF 2004 IN IN IN APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.254 OF 2005 FROM ORDER NO.254 OF 2005 FROM ORDER NO.254 OF 2005 Mrs.Lucky Niranjan Kulkarni ...Applicant vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 4,2005. : APRIL 4,2005. : APRIL 4,2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. Taken up for hearing forthwith. 2. There is prima face material on record to show that much prior to issuance of notice under Section 354 A of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888, the part of the terrace was already covered. Hence, prima facie, on the basis of the notice under Section 354 A, entire terrace which is now covered cannot be ordered to be restored to its original position. Hence, till the final disposal of the Appeal both the parties will maintain status quo in respect of disputed structure. Notwithstanding the order of status quo the Respondent No.1 will be free to initiate action under Section 351 of the said Act of 1888 in respect of the entire disputed structure. 3. It is made clear that if any order is passed under Section 351 of the said Act of 1888 in respect of any portion of the disputed structure, the order of status quo will stand vacated to that extent. It is obvious that the order under Section - 2 - 351 of the said Act of 1888 will be passed after giving an opportunity to the Appellant of being heard. The pendency of the Appeal from Order will not operate as a stay to the suit. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.