1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.416 OF 2009 Brihanmumbai Mahanagarpalika .. Appellant Versus Salim Ahmed Akhai .. Respondent Mr.J.J.Xavier for appellant Mr.Chandan Naik for respondent. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 27th April 2010. P.C.: 1] This is an appeal from order by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai which is original defendant in the suit pending before the trial court viz., Suit No.4646 of 2004 instituted by the respondent plaintiff. 2] The Corporation is aggrieved by an order dated 30th January 2006 in Notice of Motion No.4111 of 2004 which was filed seeking interim reliefs by the respondent plaintiff. 2 3] The Court below on hearing parties and perusing the documents granted injunction restraining the appellant defendant from giving effect to the notice dated 24th September 2004 and demolished the suit premises more particularly described therein. 4] At the hearing of this appeal, both sides fairly stated that the suit is ripe for hearing and in fact the respondent plaintiff is to step into the witness box by filing his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief. In such circumstances and when the order under challenge has been passed on 30th January 2006, no useful purpose will be served by scrutinising it on merits. Instead, interest of justice would be sub-served if a direction to the trial court is issued to endeavour and dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any event by 31st January 20011. All parties should cooperate in early disposal of the suit. However, the trial court should endeavour and dispose of any pending application as well expeditiously. 5] Mr.Xavier appearing for Corporation submits that when the notice to stop work has been suspended pending disposal of the suit, even the respondent plaintiff should not alter the status quo at site. Nothing has 3 been pointed out to me which would enable me to issue any directions as prayed by Mr.Xavier. In fact, if the appellant Corporation notices any activity at site which would prejudice its case at the trial, it would be open for it to point out to the trial court such an event and development and the trial court, thereafter, shall take due notice of the same and after hearing parties shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. A.O. disposed of with the aforementioned directions. 6] All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order. Needless to state that no opinion is expressed on the merits of the controversy and the AO is disposed of on mainly because the stop work notice is dated 24th September 2004 and its implementation has been suspended from January 2006 till date. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)