gst 1 ao460.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 460 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICTION NO. 603 OF 2010. M/s.In & Out Advertising Pvt. Ltd. .... ..... ....Appellant. V/s Mun. Corpn. Of Gr. Mumb ai.... .... ..Respondent. Mr.Navin Parekh i/by M/s.Hetal Patel, Adv. For the appellant. Ms.K.K.Soraan, Adv. For BMC. CORAM: D.G.KARNIK, J. 18th Nov., 2010. PC: 1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.2.2010 passed by the learned City Civil Court at Dindoshi declining to grant ex-parte ad-interim relief. 2. The appellant which is an advertising company erected a hoarding after obtaining a permit/licence dated 14.5.2001 from the respondent. On 19.6.2008 the respondent-Municipal Corporation issued notice to the appellant to show cause why the hoarding/-- should not be removed as it was in violation of the permit as also the new policy guidelines. After considering the reply of the appellant, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, by a reasoned order rejected the explanation and directed the appellant to remove the hoarding within 24 hours failing which the respondent would remove the hoarding by itself. Aggrieved by the order the appellant approached the City Civil Court and sought an injunction restraining the respondent from removing the hoarding. The trial Judge declined to grant ex-parte ad-interim relief by an order dated gst 2 ao460.10.sxw 15.2.2010. That order is impugned in this appeal. 3. Relying upon a decision of this Court in the case of Rajan Naikar vs The. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (A.O.No.671/02 decided on 7.8.02 – Coram: Khandeparkar, J.) learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Judge erred in not considering whether prima facie case was made out and refusing to grant ad-interim relief without recording any finding whether a on the prima facie case was made out or not. Relevant portion of the order in Rajan’s case reads as follows: “However, the Court below being a court of facts and the plaintiff having approached for an ad-interim relief, ought to have independently analysed the materials placed on record and to ascertain whether there is any prima facie case made out and ought not to have proceeded to deal with the matter as if sitting in appeal over the order passed by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner.” 4. Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short `the Code’) provides that the Court shall in all cases except where it appears that object of granting injunction would be defeated by delay, before granting any injunction, direct notice on application given to the opposite party. The normal rule prescribed under Order 39 Rule 3 of the Code is issuing of notice before grant of an injunction unless court is of the view that issuance of notice would defeat the purpose of the injunction. 5. As regards the prima facie case to be considered at an ex-parte stage of grant of injunction, the appellant was required to prove that it had a valid licence for continuation of the hoarding at the site. Copy of the licnece which was produced before the trial Court and copy of which is annexed to this appeal memo at Ex.C shows that the licence granted was valid only for the month of April 2001. Learned counsel submits that the licence was not valid for one month but was valid for one year. Taking submission of the learned counsel for the appellant at the face value, still the licence expired in April, 2002. There gst 3 ao460.10.sxw was no material on record either before the trial Court or even before me to show that the licence was extended beyond April, 2002. Consequently the hoarding was continued on the site without a valid permit and licence. The appellant had not made out prima facie case that on the day on which the Deputy Municipal Commissioner passed the impugned order the appellant was in possession of a valid licence to erect and/or continue at site the hoarding/advertisement. No prima facie case was made out for grant of an ex- parte ad-interim relief. No exception can be taken to the order of the trial Court refusing to grant ad-interim relief. Appeal is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 6. At the request of the learned counsel for the appellant it is however directed that the Corporation shall not remove the hoarding in question for a period of two weeks from today. gst 4 ao460.10.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. CIVIL APPLICTION NO. 603 OF 2010. IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 460 OF 2010 M/s.In & Out Advertising Pvt. Ltd. .... ..... ....Appellant. V/s Mun. Corpn. Of Gr. Mumb ai.... .... ..Respondent. Mr.Navin Parekh i/by M/s.Hetal Patel, Adv. For the appellant. Ms.K.K.Soraan, Adv. For BMC. CORAM: D.G.KARNIK, J. 18th Nov., 2010. PC: In view of dismissal of the appeal civil application does not survive and the same also stands disposed of.