1 1234.11-ao IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1234 OF 2011 M/s.M.S.Shah Developers Pvt.Ltd. ... Appellant. V/s. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and others. ... Respondents. J.Shekhar with Ms.Tanu Dayal and Abhishek Patil i/b. J.Shekhar and Co. for the appellant. Ms.K.K.Soran for the respondents. CORAM: R.M.BORDE, J. DATED : 9th December 2011. P.C. : Heard. 2. My attention is invited to the proceeding of S.C.Suit No. 3495/2007 between one Gokuldas Ramraya Pai and M.S.Shah Developers Pvt.Ltd. The prayer clause (b) thereof reads thus: (b) that the Defendants, their Director, servants and agents be restrained by permanent order of injunction of this Hon’ble Court from putting any construction of whatsoever nature or developing the suit premises viz. agricultural land bearing 2 1234.11-ao Survey No.99, C.T.S.No.213, Hissa No.13, admeasuring 669.4 sq.meters and another agricultural land bearing Survey No.99, C.T.S. No. 206, Hissa No.15 admeasuring 2089.9 sq. meters situated at M.G.Road, Bhandar Pakhadi, Kandivali (West), Mumbai- 400 068.” 3. The aforesaid suit presented by Mr.Pai has been decreed in terms of prayer clause (b) so far as it relates to land bearing Survey No.99, C.T.S.No.213, Hissa No.13 admeasuring 669.4 sq.meters and rest of the suit is dismissed. It is stated that an appeal is preferred against the decree passed in the said suit and the same is pending. 4. So far as Mr.Pai is concerned, on perusal of the prayers of the plaint and the relief granted by the Court, it appears that he has not been held entitled to the land bearing Survey No.99 C.T.S.No.206, Hissa No.15 admeasuring 2089.9 sq.meters. However, the property being developed by the present appellant- developer is larger area which comprises of smaller area of C.T.S.No.206. In the instant suit, interim relief is claimed without joining the said Mr.Pai as party to the litigation. The trial Court has refused to grant ad-interim relief as prayed for by the plaintiff. In my opinion, the trial Court has rightly decided the application for ad-interim relief and refused to consider the same. Since the matter is at ad-interim stage, it is not appropriate to pass any finding touching the merits of the controversy involved. Ends of justice would be met if the trial Court is directed to decide the pending notice of motion expeditiously. 5. The trial Court is, thus, directed to dispose of pending notice of motion in L.C.Suit No.2111/2011 as expeditiously as possible, 3 1234.11-ao preferably, within sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this order. The respondent Corporation shall be at liberty to file their written statement/ reply before the trial Court along with documents, if any. The trial Court, obviously, would not be swayed away by the observations made by the Court earlier while rejecting the prayer for grant of ad-interim relief or the observations made by this Court while disposing of this appeal from order. 6. Appeal from order is disposed of. In view of disposal of appeal from order, pending civil application does not survive and stands dispose of accordingly. (R.M.BORDE, J.)