1 1254.11-ao IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1254 OF 2011 Tukaram Gopal Jogale. ... Appellant. V/s. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ... Respondent. Harish R. Pawar for the appellant. K.K.Soran for the respondent. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 21st November 2011. P.C. : The subject matter of challenge in this appeal from order is refusal by the trial Court to grant ad-interim relief. During the pendency of the notice of motion, the Municipal Corporation issued notice under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 directing the appellant to remove unauthorized construction. It appears from the record that on previous occasion also such notice was issued and unauthorized developments were demolished. In spite of demolition of unauthorized developments, again unauthorized construction is raised by the appellant. There is also no evidence to demonstrate that the unauthorized construction, which is in existence, was raised prior to the datum line i.e. 17th April 1964. The trial Court 2 1254.11-ao was, therefore, justified in refusing to grant interim relief. No case is made out to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal from order is, thus, dismissed. 2. The trial Court is, however, directed to decide pending Notice of Motion No.2513/2011 presented in L.C.Suit No.2009/2011 on its merits in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The Municipal Corporation is permitted to file written statement/reply along with documents, if any. 3. In view disposal of appeal from order, pending notice of motion does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)