ppn 1 12.caf-1769.13.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1769 OF 2013 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1550 OF 2013 Ramesh D. Patel @ Grami ….Applicant/Appellant V/s. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. .…Respondents ---- Mr. Yogendra M. Kanchan for the applicant/appellant. Mr. Pradeep M. Patil for the respondent-MCGM. ---- CORAM : JITENDRA JAIN, J. DATED : 2 February 2026 P. C. : 1. No orders. 2. It is expressly made clear that by an order dated 23 December 2025, the interim reliefs were vacated. Today, learned counsel for the appellant sought revival of the interim relief. 3. The Court posed a question to the learned counsel for the appellant to show speaking order of this Court passed after filing of the appeal which granted interim relief. No such order was pointed out. The order which was pointed out was a simplicitor extension of the stay of the impugned order granted by the Trial Court. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the suit structure is in the plan and it existed prior to the date when he got this property from his brother. He fairly states that this submission was not made before the PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR Digitally signed by PRACHI PRANESH NANDIWADEKAR Date: 2026.02.02 17:16:14 +0530 ppn 2 12.caf-1769.13.doc Trial Court. If this submission was not made before the Trial Court, then seeking stay of the Trial Court's order on this very submission is not permissible. 5. The Court gave an option that as of today, the Trial Court's order is against the appellant which has upheld the notice under Section 351 of the MMC Act, which deals with illegal structure of approximately 300 square feet in residential premises. The premises are located at Bandra (West) which is a locality of high networth people. The Court, therefore, to balance the equity of both the parties i.e., the appellant and the Corporation, suggested to the appellant that Rs. 15,000/-per month from June 2006 till January 2026 be deposited in this Court. The said figure till today works out to Rs.36 lakhs. The Court also directed the appellant that if the appellant makes this deposit within 8 weeks, then the Court can consider the prayer for interim relief. The above amount of Rs.36 lakhs is up to January 2026 and from 1 April 2026, Rs.15,000/- per month to be deposited in this Court. This amount was supposed to be invested in fixed deposit till the disposal of the appeal and the said deposit will be subject to the outcome of the appeal. This figure has been arrived at by keeping in mind that if the Trial Court's order is upheld, then the appellant has enjoyed the benefit of illegal structure since 2006, if not before, though according to the appellant, he has got this structure in the year 1956. 6. If the Trial Court's order is found to be erroneous at the time of final disposal of the appeal, then the amount was to be refunded to the appellant. Therefore, this course of action was suggested keeping in mind the balance of equity of both the parties. 7. However, since the learned counsel for the appellant states that his client is not in a position to make this payment, the prayer for interim belief ppn 3 12.caf-1769.13.doc cannot be considered. 8. Civil application is disposed of accordingly. (JITENDRA JAIN, J.)