1 SNS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.766 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1013 OF 2011 FROM NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2011 IN L.C.SUIT NO.1480 OF 2011 Shri Suhas S. Khandekar ...Appellant. v. The M.C.G.M. ...Respondents. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.767 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1014 OF 2011 WITH FROM NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2011 IN L.C. SUIT NO.1481 OF 2011 WITH APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.768 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1015 OF 2011 FROM NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2011 IN L.C.SUIT NO.1482 OF 2011 Shri Dattaram K. Ambre ...Appellant. v. The M.C.G.M. ...Respondents. APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.769 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1016 OF 2011 FROM 2 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF IN L.C.SUIT NO.1483 OF 2011 Shri Hansraj S. Shandil ...Appellant. v. The M.C.G.M. ...Respondents. Mr. S.K.Shinde i/by H.R.Pawar ,advs. For the Appellant. Ms K.K.Soran, adv. For the Respondent/BMC. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JULY 19, 2011. P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The original plaintiffs/appellants have preferred these appeals against refusal of ad- interim relief pending the notices of motion in their suits. The trial Court refused ad-interim protection on the ground that there are no documents with the plaintiffs to show that the structures were in existence prior to datum line, i.e., 1962 and are protected. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs points out from the record that even though today there are no documents about existence of these structures since prior to 1962, there are certain documents which go to show that structures might be in existence for the last about 40 years. He contends that these plaintiffs have come in occupation of all these structures under the agreement for 3 sale with different persons in or around the year 2000 and the vendors were in occupation much prior to the that. According to the plaintiffs, they have parted with substantial amount for purchase of the structures, which are in existence and which according to them appear to have been assessed to tax. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants makes a statement that the plaintiffs want some time to search for the record about the original construction and to find out whether the structures were in existence prior to 1962 and hence protected. For this purpose, some time will be required. In view of the fact that structures are in existence for quite sometime. In my opinion, no harm will be caused if they are protected for some more time so that the plaintiffs may search documents. 2 In view of the above, appeals and the applications may be disposed off with the following directions: Plaintiffs/appellants are given eight weeks time to search for the record and to produce the same before the trial Court to show that the disputed structures are protected. The copies of such documents shall also be supplied to the respondent before the same. Respondent may file reply to the notices of motion within four weeks after production of such documents and the trial Court shall hear and dispose off the notices of 4 motion within six weeks thereafter. Till the decision of the notices of motion, parties shall maintain status-quo. If the documents are not produced within given time, the trial Court shall proceed to hear notices of motion and dispose off the same on the basis of material placed before it. 3 Appeals and the applications stand disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)