MR. DILNAWAZ RASHID ALI ANSARI AND ORS.versusMUNICIPAL CORPORATION FOR GREATER MUMBAI

                                                                         35 - AO-966-2026.DOC



                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                       APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 966 OF 2026
                                     WITH
                      INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7718 OF 2026

Mr. Dilnawaz Rashid Ali Ansari
and Ors.                                                                       Appellants

      versus
Municipal Corporation For
Greater Mumbai                                                     Respondent
_________________________________________________________________
Mr. Amogh Singh, Advocate i/by V. T. Dubey and Associates, for Appellants.
Ms.       Smita    V.   Tondwalkar   i/by   Ms.       Komal   Punjabi,   Advocates       for
Respondent/BMC.
 _________________________________________________________________
                      CORAM:     AARTI SATHE, J.

                              DATE:          6th October 2026

P.C.

1.            This Appeal from Order has been filed under order XLIII rule 1 (r) of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) read with Section 104 of the CPC

challenging the refusal of ad-interim relief by the Trial Court by order dated

16th September 2026, thereby rejecting the ad-interim relief to the Appellant in

respect of the notice issued under Section 354 (A) of the Mumbai Municipal

Corporation Act, 1888 (MMC Act) in respect of the suit premises.

2.            Learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant submits that the aforesaid

Appeal from Order is against the rejection of the ad-interim relief and the Notice

of Motion has been kept for hearing on 2 nd December 2026. He also submits that




                                        Page 1 of 2
Bharati
                                                                    35 - AO-966-2026.DOC



the demolition has been carried out prior to the passing of the speaking order dated

19th January 2026.

3.         Per contra, learned counsel on behalf of MCGM has brought to the

attention of this Court that demolition of the suit structure has already commenced

and she has also brought to the attention of this Court the photographs which have

been annexed at Page Nos. 127 and 128 of the present Appeal from Order.

4.         Considering that the aforesaid Appeal from Order is against the

rejection of the ad-interim relief, this Court is of the view that the Notice of

Motion which has been fixed for hearing on 2nd December 2026, be disposed of

expeditiously by the Trial Court on the said date. No adjournments are to be

sought by the parties at the time of hearing of the aforesaid Notice of Motion.

5.         Needless to clarify that this Court has not dwelled into the merits of the

matter and has not formed any prima facie view in respect of the merits of the

aforesaid matter.

6.         All contentions of the parties to be canvased before the Trial Court are

expressly kept open.

7.         Status quo as of today, to be maintained by both the parties till the

hearing of the Notice of Motion on 2nd December 2026.

8.         Appeal from Order is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Interim

applications if any, also stands disposed of. No costs.



                                                          (AARTI SATHE, J.)




                                       Page 2 of 2
Bharati