1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.219 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.259 OF 2009 Subhash Parasmal Baldia : Appellant versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai : Respondents. Shri P S Dani i/by M/s.Kiran Jain & Co. for the Appellant. Shri J J Xavier for the Respondent/BMC CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 17, 2009 P.C. 1. Not on board. Mentioned. Taken on board. 2. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 11th February 2009 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court by which order, the ad interim order passed in favour of the 2 Appellant/Plaintiff dated 4th July 2008 came to be vacated. 3. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed L C Suit No.1202 of 2008 impugning the notice issued by the Respondent herein under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. In the said suit the Appellant/Plaintiff had filed Notice of Motion for injunction. The said Notice of Motion was moved for ad-interim reliefs on 4th July 2008, on which day ad-interim reliefs came to be granted. It appears that after the order dated 4th July 2008 was passed in the Notice of Motion, a Chamber Summons came to be filed by one Harmit Suneet Chadha for being impleaded in the said Suit on the ground that she has interest in the suit property. The said Chamber Summons came to be allowed by an order dated 20th January 2009 by the same learned Judge who had passed the order dated 4th July 2008. The Appellant/Plaintiff was consequently directed to amend the plaint so as to join the said Applicant as a party to the suit. 4. The said order dated 20th January 2009 has been 3 challenged by the Appellant/Plaintiff by filing a writ petition being Writ Petition No.1973 of 2009 which is to come up for hearing as to admission on 2nd March 2009. In the mean time, the Notice of Motion had come up for extension of the ad-interim relief granted on 4th July 2008. The learned Judge on the ground that there is no stay order from this Court of the order dated 20th January 2009, allowing the chamber Summons and for non-compliance of the said order in the matter of carrying out the amendment, vacated the said ad-interim order dated 4th July 2008. 5. The ground for vacating the ad-interim order dated 4th July 2008 is, in my view, totally unsustainable. The order allowing the Chamber Summons dated 20th January 2009 was not a conditional order imposing a condition that the ad-interim order would stand vacated if the amendment is not carried out. It is also pertinent to note that the writ petition filed against the said order dated 20th January 2009 is also pending in this Court and fixed for admission on 2nd March 2009. 4 6. In that view of the matter, the impugned order in so far as it directs vacation of the ad-interim order would have to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The ad-interim order dated 4th July 2008 would resultantly stand reinstated. The above Appeal is accordingly disposed of. 7. In view of the disposal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.259 of 2009 to accordingly stand disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]