1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 283 OF 2010 WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 284 OF 2010 A.O. NO. 283 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 190 OF 2007 IN BCCC LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 248 OF 2007 ALONG WITH A.O. NO. 284 OF 2010 IN NOTICE OF MOTIN NO. 26 OF 2007 IN BCCC LONG CAUSE SUIT NO. 25 OF 2007 Pamela Rajesh Jawalkar ... Appellant (Orig. Plaintiff) Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ... Respondents (Orig. defendants) Shri Shoaib I. Memon, Advocate,for the appellant (in both matters) Smt. K.K.Soran, Advocate, for B.M.C. (in both matters) CORAM: J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 26th March,2010. P.C. 2 Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2. In the common order passed in Notice of Motion No.26 of 2007 and Notice of Motion No. 190 of 2007 on 4.12.2009, the trial Court rejected the claim of the plaintiff/appellant mainly on the ground of the statement of the defendant No.2 Society that the building was not constructed before the cut-off date. Admittedly, the Society is the original owner of the building and the plaintiff had purchased the disputed structure in the year 2005. In the same para, the trial Court noted that when the owner says that the building is not constructed before the datum line, the matter ends there. In the next sentence, the Court observed that “It is true that plaintiff has filed copy of assessment bill which shows that building was assessed prior to 1961-62. However, this document does not show that notice structure was ever assessed.” On perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the Society had never produced the original sanctioned plan of the building and merely on the oral statement on behalf of the Society, the trial Court jumped to conclusion that this construction was not made prior to the cut-off date. 3. Taking into consideration the fact that the two suits are pending for last 3 years, it will be in the interest of justice that some protection should be given to the plaintiff till decision of the suits in view of the above circumstances. 3 4. Therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The notices issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 351 shall not be acted upon till decision in Long Cause Suits Nos. 25 of 207 and 248 of 2007 and both the suits shall be heard and disposed of together. The trial Court shall expedite the hearing of the suits and dispose of the same preferably by the end of December, 2010. Till then, the Municipal Corporation shall not act upon the said notices. Both the Appeals stand disposed of. 4. As the Appeals are disposed of, the C.A.Nos. 369 of 2010 and 370 of 2010 are disposed of accordingly. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)