1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER (ST) NO.8126 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION (ST) NO.8127 OF 2009 Harjeet Singh G. Gandhi ..Appellant V/s The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..Respondent Mr.S.J.Ghogare, Advocate, for the appellant Smt.K.K.Soraan, Advocate, for the respondent - MCGM CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 31ST MARCH, 2009 P.C. . Not on board. 2. Mentioned for urgent reliefs. 3. Taken on board. 2 4. By consent of the parties, the appeal is taken up for admission. 5. The appeal is directed against the order refusing ad-interim reliefs to the appellant/plaintiff. The ad-interim reliefs by way of status-quo are refused on the ground that reply is to be filed by the respondent – Corporation and therefore, it would not be appropriate to grant any relief in the absence of the said reply. 6. The Roznama of the said suit indicates that time is sought on behalf of the respondent – Corporation to file reply on more than one occassion. In my view, it would therefore be just & proper to direct the parties to maintain status-quo and direct the Notice of Motion to be disposed of within a particular time frame. The above Appeal from Order is, therefore, disposed of with the following directions. (i) The respondent – Corporation to file reply to the Notice of Motion within a period of four weeks from date. The plaintiff to file rejoinder, if any, within two weeks thereafter. (ii) The Notice of Motion to be heard and decided by the Trial 3 Court within a period of twelve weeks from date. (iii) Pending the disposal of the Notice of Motion the parties are directed to maintain status-quo. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)