.. 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER STAMP NO. 9837 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION STAMP NO. 9838 OF 2009 M.K. Saran .... Appellant. V/s. MCGM & Othrs. .... Respondents. Mr. R.G. Dube for appellant. Ms. K.K. Sorran for respondent no. 1-BMC. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. DATED : 22ND APRIL 2009. P.C. The above matter was placed under “Urgent Order” caption, though it was circulated for admission as same was under office objection. 2. Mr. Dube learned Counsel for the appellant make a statement that objections will be removed within a period of 1 week. Statement accepted. SKT/- .. 2 .. 3. In view of the urgency, by consent, matter is taken for final hearing. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. 4. Mr. Dube learned counsel for the appellant at the outset seeks leave to delete names of respondent nos. 2 & 3 as they are formal parties. Leave granted at his own risk. 5. The appellant filed Long Cause Suit No. 4840 of 2004 against the respondents challenging 354-A notice under BMC Act in respect of suit structure namely mezzanine floor which is more appropriately described in paragraph (1) of the abovesaid suit. 6. The appellant filed the notice of motion no. 4228 of 2004 for temporary injunction restraining respondent from demolishing the suit structure. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court, granted temporary injunction in favour of the appellant and kept this Notice of Motion alongwith abovesaid suit. Aforesaid L.C.Suit No. 4820 of 2009 as well as Notice of Motion No. 4228 of 2004 itself came to be dismissed for default on 25th March 2009 and SKT/- .. 3 .. thereafter, appellant received notice on 13th April 2009 from respondent no. 1 Corporation under section 354-A for demolition of suit structure. Appellant thereafter on 15th April 2009, rushed to the City Civil Court and filed present Notice of Motion for restoration of suit and also earlier Notice of Motion. The appellant also claimed interim relief for protection of suit structure pending consideration of Notice of Motion for restoration of suit and also notice of motion for injunction. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court adjourned Notice of Motion to 8th June 2009 to enable respondents to file reply. However, in the mean time refused protection to the suit structure. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1-BMC has no objection to grant of protection to appellant' s suit structure during the pendency and final disposal of notice of motion for restoration, provided the appellant will not raise any objection for filing of written statement by the respondent at late stage. SKT/- .. 4 .. 7. Mr Dube learned counsel for the appellant make statement that appellant will not object late filing of written statement by the respondent-BMC. He, taking instructions from his client, who is present in the Court make a statement that suit structure is not demolished as on today. 8. In the facts and circumstances, stated above, coupled with the statements made by the learned counsel of respective parties, I disposed of the Appeal from Order by passing following order : “During the pendency and final disposal of the notice of motion taken out by the appellant for restoration of Suit No. 4880 of 2004 alongwith Notice of Motion No. 4228 of 2004, the suit structure in question shall not be demolished.” 9. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order nothing survive in Civil application Stamp No. 9838 of 2009. The same is disposed of accordingly. (R.V. MORE, J.) SKT/-