1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY & ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1391 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 909 OF 2009 Abdul Ansari. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai. ... Defendant. AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1392 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 911 OF 2009 Raghu Nadar. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai. ... Defendant. AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1393 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 910 OF 2009 Sachindra U. Kotian. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai. ... Defendant. AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1441 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 931 OF 2009 Ashfaq Ahmed. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai. ... Defendant. AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1442 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 935 OF 2009 2 Nilesh Datta Shinde. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai. ... Defendant. AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1443 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 932 OF 2009 Akhlakh Ahmed. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai. ... Defendant. AND NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 1444 OF 2009 IN SUIT NO. 933 OF 2009 Prakash G. Wasir Kaur. ... Plaintiff. V/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai. ... Defendant. Mr. Gabriel Pillai for the Plaintiff. Mr. H.C. Pimple a/w. R.Y. Sirsikar for the Defendant. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 15th DECEMBER 2009. P.C. :- The matters were placed for hearing and final disposal at the request of the parties. 2. An affidavit is filed by the Administrative Officer (Estates) of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and in the said affidavit he has, apart from raising several pleas, in 3 paragraph 5 (e) stated that the Plaintiff has allegedly carried out construction of auto garages and illegal shades on the site under reference. There are no valid documents. The Plaintiff has failed to prove that the structure is legal and authorized. Therefore, the Defendants have issued a notice under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (M.R.T.P.) Act, dated 25th November 2009. 3. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Defendants states that the Defendants have issued this notice and after receipt of the same, the Plaintiffs have instituted a Suit in the City Civil Court at Bombay, challenging these notices, there is an interim order in the said Suit, the interim application as well as the Suit in the City Civil Court is pending. 4. Having perused the affidavit filed by B.M.C. in all these matters and Section 55 of M.R.T.P. Act, I have no doubt in my mind that presently the Plaintiffs have no apprehension which would justify their applying for interim relief in terms of prayers of the Notice of Motion. 5. In these circumstances, by keeping open all contentions and pleas and observing that anything stated in the affidavit in reply shall not be deemed to have admitted by the Plaintiff, all Notices of Motion stand disposed off. However, since the Suit is pending, the Plaintiff is at liberty to apply for such interim reliefs as are permissible in law, if in future they have 4 any apprehension as set out in the affidavits in support of the Notices of Motion. 6. The Notices of Motion disposed off with no order as to costs, subject to liberty as above. However, it is directed that the Plaintiff shall not carry out any further construction or extend the structures/shades in their possession. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)