24- IA-7208-26 IN AOST.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7208 OF 2026 IN Appeal from Order (ST) NO. 22246 OF 2026 Vamanashram Co-operative Hsg. Society Ltd. ...Applicant Versus Lic Employees Shramsaphalya Chsl ...Respondent(s) _______ Mr. Rohan Savant a/w. Aagam Mehta a/w. Mr. Atul Singh, a/w. Mr. Hemant Joshi, a/w. Ms. Ritrika Dave, i/b. Samarth Associates, for Appellant. None for the Respondents. _______ CORAM: AARTI SATHE, J. DATE: 21 SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C. 1. The present Appeal from Order is filed challenging the order dated 3rd July 2026 passed by the learned City Civil Court, Dindoshi (“the learned Trial Court”), whereby the learned Trial Court declined to grant ad-interim reliefs sought by the Appellant in Notice of Motion No. 1984 of 2026 in Civil Suit No. 1222 of 2026. By the impugned order, the learned Trial Court has refused to grant the ad-interim reliefs as prayed for by the Appellant. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that the original building of the Respondent-Society was constructed sometime in the year 1977. At the relevant time, the Respondent-Society had constructed a compound wall demarcating and separating its plot from the adjoining plot of land, upon Mane JYOTI RAJESH MANE Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJESH MANE Date: 2026.09.22 19:13:41 +0530 24- IA-7208-26 IN AOST.DOC which the old building of the Appellant came to be constructed in the year 1985. The said compound wall is the subject matter of the dispute in the present proceedings and has remained in existence, continuously and without interruption, for almost 50 years. 3. In the year 2023, when the Notice of Motion was heard in respect of various reliefs sought therein, no ad-interim relief was granted in favour of the Respondent-Society. During the course of the redevelopment work undertaken by the Appellant-Society, the compound wall was partly demolished on account of falling debris. The redevelopment of the building of the Appellant was completed in the year 2024. In order to comply with the conditions stipulated in the IOD, the Appellant is required to reconstruct the compound wall, and unless the said conditions are duly complied with, the Occupation Certificate (“OC”) cannot be granted by the BMC. 4. In March 2024, the Appellant addressed a notice to the Respondent- Society informing the Respondent - Society of its intention to reconstruct the compound wall at the same location and in the same manner in which it existed prior to its partial demolition in the year 2022. However, despite repeated requests and reminders, the Respondent - Society has continued to obstruct and/or oppose the reconstruction of the compound wall by the Appellant. 5. On account of the aforesaid conduct and refusal on the part of the Respondent – Society, the Appellant was constrained to institute Suit No. 1222 of 2026, inter alia, seeking injunctive reliefs restraining the Respondent - Society from causing any obstruction to the reconstruction of the compound wall. The Mane 24- IA-7208-26 IN AOST.DOC Appellant has also taken out Notice of Motion No. 1984 of 2026 seeking interim reliefs in the said Suit. The said Notice of Motion is presently pending adjudication. 6. This Court is of the view that, since the present Appeal from Order has been preferred against the ad-interim order dated 3rd July 2026, and since the learned Trial Court has not adjudicated the matter on merits or formed any prima facie view in respect thereof, it would be appropriate and in the interest of justice that Notice of Motion No. 1984 of 2026 be heard and decided expeditiously by the learned Trial Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has placed on record the Roznamas to demonstrate that the Notice of Motion has remained pending for hearing and has, on several occasions, not been taken up, thereby causing prejudice to the Appellant. None appears on behalf of the Respondent- Society, despite service of notice by private service. However, having regard to the nature of the orders that this Court proposes to pass in the present Appeal from Order, this Court is of the view that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent. 8. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the view that Notice of Motion No. 1984 of 2026 ought to be heard and decided by the learned Trial Court expeditiously. Accordingly, the learned Trial Court is requested to hear and decide the aforesaid Notice of Motion on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible and, preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. The parties will Mane 24- IA-7208-26 IN AOST.DOC not seek adjournment before the trial Court at the hearing of the Notice of Motion. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. 9. It is clarified that this Court has not delved into the merits of the matter and has not expressed any prima facie view thereon. The learned Trial Court shall decide the Notice of Motion uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order. 10. The Appeal from Order stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions. 11. Pending Interim Application, if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (AARTI SATHE, J.) Mane