- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FARAD FARAD FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET. CONTINUATION SHEET. CONTINUATION SHEET. CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPLICATION NO.767 OF 2003 APPLICATION NO.767 OF 2003 APPLICATION NO.767 OF 2003 IN IN IN APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER ST.NO.42958 OF 2002 FROM ORDER ST.NO.42958 OF 2002 FROM ORDER ST.NO.42958 OF 2002 Mrs.Sulochana Jayant Shetty ...Applicant Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. A.S.OKA,J. DATE DATE DATE : FEBRUARY 11, 2005. : FEBRUARY 11, 2005. : FEBRUARY 11, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The learned Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant seeks time to serve the Respondent-Corporation. By order dated 11th January 2005 I had observed that the Respondent-Corporation has not been served for last more than two years. Therefore, the Advocate for the Appellant/Applicant was directed to serve an Advocate’s notice on the Respondent-Corporation and also to inform the Corporation that the Civil Application will be heard on 11th February 2005. The learned Advocate states that till today notice is not served on the Respondent-Corporation. It was made very clear in order dated 11th January 2005 that if notice was not served, ad-interim relief granted on 5-11-2002 will stand vacated. Surprisingly, for effecting service on Respondent-Mumbai Municipal Corporation time of two weeks is again sought today. Hence, I have no option but to vacate the ad-interim relief granted in this Application on 5-11-2002. It is made clear that now there is no ad-interim relief operating in favour of the Appellant/Applicant. - 2 - 2. Place the Civil application on board as and when the Respondent-Corporation is served. JUDGE. JUDGE. JUDGE.