1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1144 OF 2009 Mr.Prabodh B. Bhuta ... Appellant v/s The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ... Respondent Mr.A.C.Singh i/by Dhanesh R. Shah for the appellant. Smt.K.K.Soraan for the respondent Corporation. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 17TH NOVEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The Trial Court i.e. the City Civil Court has refused ad- interim relief to the appellant in respect of a notice issued under Section 53(1) of the M.R.T.P. Act. That notice has been issued on 5.10.2009. The Trial Court has, after considering the submissions of both the appellant as well as the Corporation, held that, prima facie it has no jurisdiction to decide the suit as the jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred under Section 149 of the M.R.T.P. Act. In this view of the 2 matter, ad-interim relief has been refused. 2. A grievance is made on behalf of the appellant that the Trial Court could not have refused to pass ad-interim orders only on this ground without framing an issue under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure as to whether the Court has jurisdiction. 3. It is further submitted that part of the offending structure has been removed and the only dispute today would be the opening of the door leading to the terrace of the building. 4. In my view, the Trial Court has committed no error in refusing to grant the ad-interim relief. The Court shall frame the issue regarding its jurisdiction under Section 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure and decide the same within two weeks from today. 5. Appeal from order stands dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the appeal from order, Civil Application No. 1413 of 2009 also stands dismissed. 3 7. Till then, the Corporation will not barricade the door which leads to the terrace ,which according to it, has been illegally put up by the appellant. However, the appellant shall not use that terrace during the aforesaid period of two weeks. ..... 4