1 of 2 10.AO.919.2026.DOC IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.919 OF 2026 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO.7019 OF 2026 Fahad Khan Appellant versus Municipal Corpn of Greater Mumbai and another Respondents _______ Ms.Eshwaree Suraj Kudalkar with Mr.S.M.Sabrad and Mr.Amey C.Sawant for Appellant. Ms.Smita Tondwalkar for Respondent MCGM. _______ CORAM : AARTI SATHE, J. DATE : 8th September 2026 P.C. 1. This Appeal from Order has been filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1 read with Section104 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 taking exception to the order dated 1st September 2026 (impugned order) passed by learned Trial Court which has rejected the Appellant’s prayer for ad-interim relief. The primary grievance of the Appellant in the present Appeal from Order is that the Trial Court has refused ad-interim relief and failed to appreciate various documents, plans and relevant municipal records before arriving at the conclusion that the existing notice structure is an unauthorized construction. A notice under Section 351(1A) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (`MMC Act’) has been issued on 5th June 2026 and subsequently a speaking order dated 6th August 2026 has been passed by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (`MCGM’). M.S.Thatte MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Digitally signed by MANISH SURESHRAO THATTE Date: 2026.09.09 14:44:14 +0530 2 of 2 10.AO.919.2026.DOC 2. On perusal of the roznama which is the impugned order, it is seen that the Notice of Motion has been kept for hearing on 30th October 2026 and considering that only ad-interim relief has been denied to the Appellant and the Notice of Motion is pending adjudication, this Court is of the view that the Trial Court will decide the Notice of Motion as expeditiously as possible on the adjourned date i.e. 30th October 2026 after considering all the submissions and documents which are placed on record. It is clarified that this Court has not opined anything on merits or given any prima facie findings on the merits of the case. If the order passed on the Notice of Motion 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. The parties shall not seek adjournment on 30th October 2026. 3. Needless to state that all contentions of the parties are expressly kept open. 4. The Appeal from Order is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs. Interim Application stands disposed of. 5. Status-quo as of today in respect of the suit premises to continue till the hearing of Notice of Motion No.4448 of 2026, which is scheduled on 30th October 2026. (AARTI SATHE, J.) M.S.Thatte