1 of 3 7.AO.229.2023.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.229 OF 2023 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3212 OF 2023 Naresh Shriram Chaudhari @ Dhobi and others Appellants versus Designated Officer, Ward-T and another Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.9521 OF 2024 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.229 OF 2023 M/s.Si Kaushal Buildcon, through its Partner Jerry John David Applicant versus Naresh Shriram Chaudhari @ Dhobi and others Respondents _______ Mr.Pralhad Paranjape for Appellant. Ms.Smita V.Tondwalkar for Respondent-MCGM. Mr.Yash Momaya with Mr.Utkarsh Sonadi, Ms.Kashmira Dingankar i/by APS Law Associates for Intervenor in IA.1921/2024. _______ CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J. DATE : 8th September 2026 P.C. 1. This Appeal from Order has been filed taking exception to the impugned judgment and order dated 17th March 2023 passed by the Ad-hoc Judge, City Civil Court, Greater Mumbai (Court No.4) (`Trial Court’) in Notice of Motion (unregistered) in L.C.Suit No.3204 of 2023 whereby the Trial Judge has M.S.Thatte MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Digitally signed by MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2026.09.09 14:44:14 +0530 2 of 3 7.AO.229.2023.DOC rejected the Notice of Motion filed by the Appellants therein for restraining the Defendant nos.1 and 2 its officers, servants, agents and persons claiming through the Respondent No.1 from implementing, execution, enforcing or taking any action of demolition of any nature whatsoever in respect of the suit notice dated 4th November 2022 issued under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act (MMC Act) and speaking order dated 2nd March 2023 passed by the Respondent No.2 Designated Officer and further disturbing the Appellants lawful use, occupation and possession of the suit premises suit structure Shop No.2, situated at Kaushal Niwas, Sarojani Naidu Road, village Mulund (W), Tal. Kurla BSD, Mumbai. 2. On perusal of the impugned order dated 17th March 2023 it is seen that the Notice of Motion is pending adjudication before the Trial Court wherein the Trial Court would have to deal with the reliefs therein after providing an opportunity to the parties and on forming a prima facie view on perusal of the pleadings. The impugned order is an order rejecting ad-interim relief and therefore without opining anything on merits or giving any prima facie imprimatur of this Court, it would be in the interest of justice if the learned Trial Court is directed by this Court to decide upon the Notice of Motion/Interim Application seeking interim relief as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three weeks from today. If the said order is adverse to the Plaintiffs, same shall be stayed for a further period of two weeks from the date of passing the order in order to enable the Plaintiffs to take recourse to the superior Court. M.S.Thatte 3 of 3 7.AO.229.2023.DOC 3. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (`MCGM’) is at liberty to file affidavit-in-reply before the Trial Court within two weeks from today. The Applicant in Interim Application No.4521 of 2024 is also at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings for intervention before the Trial Court before the Notice of Motion is heard. No adjournment shall be sought by either of the parties at the time of Notice of Motion. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. 4. Ad-interim relief granted by this Court by its earlier order dated 30th March 2023 shall continue to operate till the Notice of Motion is heard, which is scheduled after three weeks from today. 5. The Appeal from Order is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending Interim Applications do not survive and stand disposed of. (AARTI SATHE, J.) M.S.Thatte