B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred against the interim order passed by the High Court of Bombay dated 8.10.2009 in Appeal from Order No. 1040 of 2009. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that appellant/plaintiff filed the Civil Suit No. 1177/08 for determination of the site of demolished structure and to determine the area thereof to be reconstructed pursuant to the order dated 21.6.2008 passed by the Respondent-Authority.
(3.) The predecessor-in-interest of respondent No. 3 was an unauthorised occupant of a hut/structure in the slum area measuring about 600 sq. ft. Respondent No. 3 vide Deed of Assignment dated 15.7.2006 assigned her rights to the respondent No. 4. The partner of the present appellant submitted a list of persons to the B.M.C.-Respondent who had to be evicted. In the said list one Shri Gupta Ram Rekha Ram Bakhash was shown occupying room No. 14, behind S.H. Compound, near DTC Hotel, Saraswati Nagar, Sahar Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The show cause notices under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 were issued to all such occupants for eviction. The notice was sent to Shri Gupta Ram Rekha Ram Bakhash and not to the respondent No. 3. The aforesaid structure was demolished on 11.6.2008. Immediately after demolition of the said structure, a representation dated 17.6.2008 was made by respondent No. 3 through her Advocate Smt. Sangeeta Lanjewal alleging that her structure had wrongly been demolished by the respondents and it was requested to restore the same. Documents in support of her case were also filed. The Statutory Authority considered the said representation and allowed the same vide order dated 21.6.2008. Being aggrieved by the said order of restoration of the demolished structure, appellant filed Suit No. 1177/08 in Bombay City Civil Court along with Notice of Motion No. 1342/08 which was dismissed by the Court vide order dated 8.6.2009. Being aggrieved, appellant preferred an appeal, however, the High Court vide order dated 30.7.2009 rejected the appeal and directed the respondents to restore the structure. However, it was clarified that restoration would be subject to the final result of the suit. The appellant preferred SLP (C) No. 21977/09 challenging the order dated 30.7.2009 passed by the High Court. The said SLP was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.9.2009.;