1 wp8279.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 8279 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION ST. NO. 30449 OF 2011 Quadri Anwar Ahmed S/o Zahoor Ahmed PETITIONER -VERSUS- Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad RESPONDENT ...... Shri S.G. Laddha, advocate for the petitioner Shri Karad, advocate for respondent. ...... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 28th November , 2011. PER COURT : 1. The petitioner impugns the order passed by the District Court, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application of the petitioner for temporary injunction i.e. restraining the present respondent, their officers from giving effect to the notice and from demolishing the tin shed of the petitioner situated in survey no. 19/1, Himayatnagar, Aurangabad till the disposal of the suit. The matter initially was on board dated 1st November, 2011 when the notices were issued to the respondent. Thereafter, the matter was on Board on 16th November, 2011. As nobody appear for respondents, the matter was kept on 21st November, 2011. On 21st November, 2011, 2 wp8279.11 learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation appeared and sought time. At his request the matter was adjourned to 28th November, 2011 i.e. today. Today, the petitioner has filed Civil Application with a prayer that the respondent-Municipal Corporation be directed to restore the tin shed in question by passing an order of status-quo ante along with all its articles so also seeking damages against the respondent. 2. Shri Karad, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though, it was assured that the position would be maintained for a week, still the respondent-Municipal Corporation demolished the said tin shed. On one hand the respondent sought adjournment and on the other hand during interregnum demolished the said tin shed. Such an act is improper and not inconsonance with the principles of natural justice, equity and good conscience. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for the restoration of status-quo ante. 3. Shri Karad, learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation submits that it appears that there is some communication gap between the counsel and the Officers of the Municipal Corporation. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner if succeeds in the suit can claim all these reliefs as claimed in the Civil Application. Learned counsel contends that both the Courts concurrently rejected the temporary injunction application and the Municipal Corporation bonafidely had 3 wp8279.11 demolished the said construction. 4. The petitioner in the Civil Application has narrated few facts. This Court in its writ jurisdiction would not embark into investigation of facts. Suffice it to observe that when the respondent had sought an adjournment, in such circumstances the respondent should have stayed its hand from proceeding further. As the respondent had sought an adjournment and the matter was adjourned in such circumstances, it is expected that respondent during the said interregnum should not take any action. Be that as it may, the structure has already been demolished. Same is accepted by both the parties. All these events are subsequent and during the pendency of the Writ Petition. The petitioner will be at liberty to file necessary amendment application regarding the subsequent events and claim appropriate relief in the trial Court. In case, the petitioner eventually at the end of trial of the suit is in position to prove that the notices were not legal and valid, then the petitioner would be entitled for all the reliefs that are claimed and if proved. As such, at this stage it would not be appropriate to pass any order of restoration of status-quo ante and same can be done by the trial Court at the end of the suit while passing the final decree if eventually the plaintiffs proves its contentions. Relief claimed in the said Civil Application can be claimed by the petitioner in the main suit. 4 wp8279.11 5. Trial Court shall dispose of the suit taking into account the subsequent events, which have taken place. Trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible after necessary amendments are made and preferably within a period of nine months from today. The Writ Petition and the Civil Applications are accordingly disposed of. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE ga s/wp8279.11