1 AO.1325.2011-NM. 1179.2011-LC.S.1129.2011.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1325 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.1179 OF 2011 IN L.C.SUIT NO.1129 OF 2011 M.C.G.M ...Appellant (Orig. Respdt.) Vs. Shiv Shakti Shejar Sammittee Shahakari Santha Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents (Orig. Plaintiff) Mrs. Geeta Jogalekar i/b. R.A. Malandkar for Appellant Mr. R.R. Verma i/b. Mr. A.M. Saraogi for Respondent No.1 CORAM : MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. AND MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. Date : 23 DECEMBER 2011. P.C. 1. Not on board. Mentioned at 11 a.m. Taken on board. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for respondents hutment dwellers submits that the time limit for demolition of the hutments be extended for some period. 3. Mrs. Jogalekar, learned Counsel for the appellant Corporation opposes the request and submits that when the order was pronounced on 15 2 AO.1325.2011-NM. 1179.2011-LC.S.1129.2011.sxw December 2011, the plaintiffs’ Advocate Mr. Saraogi was clearly informed that only one week’s time was granted to remove the personal belongings of the plaintiffs and that the Corporation has been given time limit only up to 24 December 2011 for carrying out the directions given in PIL No.140 of 2006. Mrs. Jogalekar further states that today all the arrangements are made by the Municipal Corporation by spending a sum of Rs.6 lakhs and employing 200 manpower and also police assistance has been obtained. It is submitted that the entire project of replacing the 100 year old main water pipeline supplying water to the Mumbai City has been delayed by plaintiffs on one ground or another for the last many months and, therefore, no further time be granted. 4. We may also refer to the fact that as per the finding given by us large number of plaintiffs have taken up flats in MHADA accommodation which is at hardly 25 mtrs. distance from the pipeline. 5. In view of the above statements the request made on behalf of the respondents is rejected. CHIEF JUSTICE ROSHAN DALVI, J.