1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.217 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.256 OF 2009 Smt. Chhaya M. Pawar ..Appellant V/s The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ..Respondent Mr.B.P.Shukla, Advocate, for the appellant Mr.Vinod Mahadik, Advocate, for the respondent CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 18TH FEBRUARY, 2009 P.C. . This appeal takes exception to the Order dated 25th November, 2008, passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court by which order Notice of Motion No.463 of 2008 filed by the appellant/plaintiff came to be dismissed. 2. The plaintiff was issued notice under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. The said notice was issued as 2 the structure of the plaintiff was coming within the road line of 45.70 Mulund Goregaon Link Road, Opposite R.T.O Office, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080. The plaintiff was, therefore, called upon to remove the structure within a period of seven days. 3. After the receipt of the said notice, the plaintiff through her Advocate replied to the said notice and contended that she is entitled to permanent alternate accomodation as her structure was in existence since prior to 1st January, 2000. The plaintiff relied upon the following documents (i) Ration Card of the year 1994, (ii) Election Receipt dated 18th May, 1999 (iii) Birth Certificate of the child dated 29th December, 1997 & a letter of the Corporation dated 4th May, 1999. 4. The concerned authority of the respondent – Corporation gave an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff and passed an order thereby holding that on the basis of the documents authenticity of the said structure was not proved. The authority, therefore, called upon the plaintiff to remove the said structure within a period of 15 days of 3 the receipt of this order, failing which the same would be removed at the risk of the plaintiff. 5. After the receipt of the Order, the plaintiff filed Long Cause Suit No.462 of 2008 challenging the said notice and the order passed thereon. The plaintiff in the said suit, filed Notice of Motion No.463 of 2008 for injunction restraining the defendant from demolishing the suit premises admeasuring 10' x 25' at Link Road, Opposite R.T.O office, Mulund (W), Mumbai – 400 080. The said Notice of Motion was considered by the Trial Court and by the impugned Order dated 25th November, 2008, the said Notice of Motion came to be dismissed. The Trial Court considered each of the documents produced by the plaintiff. The Trial Court in so far as the Ration Card was concerned, observed that the Ration Card was of the year 1994, since the original Ration Card was not produced on record it does not establish that whether the Ration Card was issued on the address of the suit premises. 6. In so far as the Birth Extract of her son was concerned, 4 wherein the address mentioned is as Link Road, Sonapur RTO Office, Mulund. The Trial Court was of the view that the said address has been entered at the behest of the plaintiff and therefore, it could not be said that the plaintiff's son was born at the said address. 7. The Trial Court also took into consideration the photographs produced by the respondent and came to a conclusion that the said structure appears to be of recent origin and probably constructed after the disposal of the Long Cause Suit No.4216 of 2007 filed by the plaintiff earlier in which suit the respondents were directed to follow the due process of law before evicting the plaintiff. Considering the said material on record, the Trial Court rejected the said Notice of Motion. 8. Admittedly, the plaintiff's structure is coming within the road alignment of Mulund Goregaon Link Road. In fact, the said structure is in the middle of the said road. The structure is, therefore, an obstruction to the said Project undertaken by the Public Authority. 5 9. Having considered the reasons cited by the Trial Court as also the material produced by the plaintiff in support of her case, in my view, the findings recorded by the Trial Court whilst rejecting the Notice of Motion cannot be faulted with. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The above Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 10. In view of the dismissal of the Appeal from Order, Civil Application No.256 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. (R.M.SAVANT, J.)