1 906 29A caf 3062.03.doc k IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3062 OF 2003 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 31 OF 2003 The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ..Applicants. Vs. Kalu Jamaluddin Shaikh & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr. Vinod Mahadik for the applicants/BMC. Mr. A.R.Patil, AGP for respondent no.2/MHADA. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 27/10/2010. PC: 1 Heard learned counsel for the Applicants/BMC, Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the Respondent no.2/MHADA. None appears for Respondent no.1. 2 On 19.10.2010 this Court passed the following order: “1 This Application is filed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai for vacating the interim stay granted by this court vide order dated 13.03.2003. The Application was placed before this Court on 28.09.2010 and since none appeared 2 906 29A caf 3062.03.doc for the Respondents it was adjourned by way of last chance to 05.10.2010. On 05.10.2010 learned counsel for Respondent no.1 appeared and sought short adjournment for filing reply affidavit to the application and the application was accordingly adjourned to 19.10.2010. 2 Today in the morning when the Civil Application was called out for hearing none appeared for the Respondent and hence, the matter was kept in the afternoon session. Even now, when the matter is called out none appears for Respondent no.1. 3 Respondent no.1 has filed the Appeal in this Court and the same was admitted on 13.03.2003. On the very same day, this Court in Civil Application No. 3899 of 2002 passed interim order in terms of prayer clause (b) whereby the Applicant, i.e. Respondent no.1 in the Appeal, were restrained from demolishing the suit premises constructed by Respondent no.1 i.e. Appellant in the Appeal. 3 906 29A caf 3062.03.doc 4 In the Application, the Applicants have stated that they had issued notice under section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act on 13.11.2000 and in pursuance thereof the suit premises/structure was removed by Respondent no.1 on 21.11.2000. It is further stated that thereafter Respondent no.1 re-erected the structure which obstructs the Nala. Learned counsel for the Applicant placed on record the photographs of the suit structure. Respondent no.1 has not controverted the averments made in the application filed by the Corporation by filing reply affidavit. Keeping that in view and in order to give one more opportunity to the Respondent to appear. Stand over to 26.10.2010. It is made clear that no further adjournment will be granted at the request of the Respondents.” 3 It appears that the Respondent No.1 has lost interest in contesting this matter any further and that appears to the reason why nobody is appearing for him. I have perused the Civil Application. It appears that cleaning of the Nala is getting 4 906 29A caf 3062.03.doc delayed, in view of the fact that the part of the suit structure is standing on the Nala. Keeping that in view and considering that respondent no.1 is not coming forward for opposing the prayers made in the Civil Application, I am inclined to allow this Application in terms of prayer clause (a). Order accordingly. 4 Civil Application is disposed of. (D.B.Bhosale, J.)