3-ao1027-19.doc vai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1027 OF 2019 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1187 OF 2019 Smt.Suhasini Chinnaya Shetty ...Appellant V/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Akash Rebello i/b Mr.Nitesh Acharya for the Appellant. Mr.Narendra V. Walawalkar, Senior Counsel with Ms.Neeta Jadhav i/b Ms.Komal Punjabi for the Respondents – BMC. Mr.Mahesh Nemade, S.E., Maintenance Department H/East Ward is present in Court. CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR , J. DATE : 3RD SEPTEMBER , 2026. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for appellant as well as learned senior counsel for respondents. 2. By this Appeal from Order, the appellant / original plaintiff has challenged the order dated 25th July, 2019 passed by the Trial Court refusing ad-interim injunction in the Notice of Motion (St.) No.202849 of 2019 dated 18th July, 2019 in L.C. Suit No.1704 of 2019. 1/3 VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Digitally signed by VASANT ANANDRAO IDHOL Date: 2026.09.05 12:11:32 +0530 3-ao1027-19.doc 3. The appellant is the original plaintiff, which has filed a civil suit challenging the notice dated 17th July, 2019 issued by the Corporation under Section 56 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (M.R.T.P. Act). In the suit, the plaintiff has filed an application for temporary injunction and has also prayed for ad- interim injunction, which came to be refused by the impugned order. Being aggrieved by refusal of the ad-interim injunction, the instant appeal is filed. 4. Record reveals that by an order dated 25th February, 2020 passed by this Court, ad-interim relief is granted in favour of the appellant / plaintiff, in terms of prayer clause (B) of I.A. No.1187 of 2019, which amounted to grant of temporary prohibitory injunction restraining the Corporation from demolishing the suit property. 5. The appellant has attempted to contend that he has got title to the suit premises and therefore the impugned notice of demolition is unsustainable. The respondents primary opposition seems to be on the contentions about availability of alternate accommodation to the appellant and need for the said land for the purpose of public project. 6. Considering the overall case and the fact that ad-interim relief is operating in this appeal since last about six years, and the 2/3 3-ao1027-19.doc Notice of Motion seeking temporary injunction is itself not decided, instead of deciding the rival contentions on merits, it is desirable that the Notice of Motion (St.) No.202849 of 2019 dated 18th July, 2019 itself is directed to be decided on merits. 7. Accordingly, the instant Appeal against Order is disposed of with a direction to the Trial Court to decide Notice of Motion (St.) No.202849 of 2019 dated 18th July, 2019 expeditiously. 8. Needless to mention that the Trial Court is entitled to decide the said Notice of Motion independently, on its own merits without being influenced by any observations recorded earlier by the Trial Court as well as by this Court. 9. The respondents are entitled to file their reply to the Notice of Motion before the Trial Court. 10. In view of this, it is directed that ad-interim order granted by this Court which in effect amounts to a restraint order with respect to the impugned notice dated 17th July 2019, shall continue to operate during the pendency of the Notice of Motion. 11. The instant Appeal against Order is accordingly disposed of. Pending Interim Applications are also disposed of. (PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.) 3/3