1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 298 OF 2006 Office notes, office memoranda of Corum, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders. Court’s Judge’s orders. 1. Heard Mrs. Anjali Bajpai, holding for Mrs. S.A. Dhumal, counsel for Appellant. This Second Appeal is filed by original defendant no. 4 being aggrieved by the decree passed in R.C.S. No. 19 of 1986 decided by Jt. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmednagar on 27/2/1992, whereby defendant no. 3 – the Chief Officer, Ahmednagar Municipal Council, 2 Ahmednagar was restrained by injunction from demolishing construction over plot no. 31 in land S. No. 72/2-A at Savedi, Tq. Ahmednagar till finalization of ratification proposal of the original lay out as proposed by the Collector. This Judgment and Decree is further confirmed in Appeal by the 2nd Extra Jt. District Judge, Ahmednagar in R.C.A. No. 177 of 1992 decided on 1/4/1998. It is clear that the original plaintiff was claiming ownership over plot nos. 30 and 31. The present Respondent no. 4 was owner of Plot no. 29. It appears that the present Respondent no. 4/defendant no. 4 appears to be added as formal party and the main relief was against Respondent no. 3. It appears that earlier lay out of 31 plots was 3 submitted for approval but in fact lay out for 29 plots was approved by the Director, Town Planning under the provisions of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act. As against the same, ratification proposal was proposed by the Collector and as an interim measure, injunction is granted against original defendant no. 3 not to demolish construction on plot no. 31 pending the finalization of ratification proposal submitted by Collector. After carefully considering the Judgment of the first Appellate Court,it does not appear that in any way the appellant/original defendant no. 4 is affected by the injunction and there does not appear to be any legal issue arising out of the matter. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in absence of substantial question 4 of law, the Appeal stands disposed off as dismissed. . DATE : 30/06/2009 [ P.R. BORKAR ] JUDGE knp/SA298.06 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13