1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 553 OF 2009 ALONGWITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 666 OF 2009 Sadruddin K. Jiwani ... Appellant v/s Municipal Corpn. Of Gr. Mumbai ... Respondent Smt. Nayana Pardeshi i/by Mr.D.M.Shah for the appellant. Smt.K.K.Soraan for the respondent Corporation. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 9TH FEBRUARY, 2010 P.C.: 1. The appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Trial Court on 29.4.2009. By this order, the Trial Court has refused to grant any relief in the notice of motion filed for temporary injunction by the appellant. 2. The main contention of the learned advocate for the appellant is that the Corporation could not have issued the notice under Section 354-A of the Mumbai Municipal 2 Corporation Act (in short, the M.M.C. Act) since the construction of the structure has been completed when the notice was issued. It is therefore submitted that the Corporation should have issued a notice under Section 351 of the M.M.C. Act for demolition of the unauthorized part of the structure. 3. The learned Trial Court has recorded the fact that the Corporation has already demolished 70% of the structure. Photographs have been produced in this Court indicating that the first floor, which had been raised by the appellant, had been demolished and is completely unusable as of today. In these circumstances, the question of protecting the plaintiff’s structure today does not arise. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly refused relief to the appellant. Whether a notice ought to have been issued under Section 351 or 354-A of the M.M.C. Act is an aspect which the Trial Court may consider at the final hearing of the suit. 4. Appeal from order dismissed along with the civil application. ..... 3