1 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 606 OF 2009 Shaikh Akhtari Bano Nijamuddin & ors. ... Appellants v/s Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & ors. ... Respondents Mr.Arshad Haindaday for the appellants. Mrs.K.K.Soraan for the Corporation. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 7TH DECEMBER, 2009 P.C.: 1. The present appeal has been filed against the dismissal of Notice of Motion No.168 of 2007. By this order, the Trial Court has found that the plaintiff had not proved that the suit structure was in existence prior to the datum line. According to the plaintiff, the suit structure has been in existence much prior to the year 1962. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that several documents were produced by him to establish this fact. These documents included a letter dated 2 2.6.2005 issued by the Corporation which is annexed to the plaint indicating that the structure was in existence prior to 1961-62. Another letter which is dated 6.2.1974 indicates that the plaintiff was permitted to repair the structure which shows the existing size of the structure as “50’ x 21’ + 20’ (four rooms)”. In my opinion, the Trial Court ought to have considered these letters before concluding that the plaintiff had no material to establish his case. 2. In my opinion, the appellant has demonstrated, prima facie, that the suit structure was in existence prior to the datum line. Therefore, the Trial Court ought to have protected the suit structure during the pendency of the suit. 3. In the circumstances, the Municipal Corporation shall not demolish the suit structure including the extension mentioned in the notice, during the pendency of the suit 4. The appeal from order is disposed of ..... 3