1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 276/2009 Tarachand Meghraj Mulchandani ..vs.. City of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, thr. Competent Authority, Municipal Commissioner & ors. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders Mr. M. Anilkumar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. S. M. Puranik, Advocate for respondents no. 1 to 3. Coram: R. K. Deshpande, J. Date : March 2, 2010 1. This appeal challenges concurrent findings of facts recorded by courts below. The trial Court has dismissed Regular Civil Suit No. 1730/1999 filed by the plaintiff/appellants seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the defendant-Corporation in respect of notice dated 12.05.1998 and 24.07.1998. The trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 02.05.2000 dismissed the said civil suit. Regular Civil Appeal No. 225/2000 filed by the appellant has also been dismissed by the appellate Court on 2 26.03.2009. Hence, this second appeal at the instance of the original plaintiff. 2. Mr. Anilkumar, learned counsel for the appellant, has urged that the appellant was not given an opportunity of being heard by the authorities of the Corporation before issuing notice and he relied upon the admissions given by witness Shashikant Kherde examined by Corporation in para 6 of his cross-examination. He has stated that before the return of Exh.-34, no hearing was given to the appellant. Learned counsel further urged that this Court had passed order dated 02.12.2008 in Writ Petition No. 4611/2008 permitting the appellant to amend the suit seeking regularization of his balcony in question. Learned counsel further submits that this aspect has been ignored by the Courts below. 3. The trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has failed to prove that notices dated 12.05.1998 and 24.07.1998 are in any way illegal or bad in law. It has recorded a finding that the notices were challenged by the plaintiff by filing appeal and revision before the competent authority wherein the construction of plaintiff's two rooms has been compounded. However, construction of balcony was not 3 compounded and it was ordered to be demolished being beyond the private limit. The appellate Court has also considered this aspect and confirmed the finding of the trial Court by holding that the construction of the balcony as it was beyond the private limit of the plaintiff/appellant having excess of Floor Space Index (FSI). 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to convince this Court as to any substantial question of law arising out of the findings recorded by Courts below. In the result, there is no substantial question of law in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. 5. Mr. Anilkumar further submits that there is an apprehension that the Corporation shall demolish two rooms to which balconies are attached. However, the appellate Court has taken into consideration this aspect and the construction of two rooms has already been compounded and it is the demolition of balcony only which is being permitted to the respondents. Hence, the apprehension expressed is baseless. 6. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prays for eight weeks time to carry out the work of demolition of the balcony. Mr. Puranik, learned counsel opposes the said 4 prayer. However, keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending since long, it would not cause any prejudice to the respondents, if the time is given to demolish the balcony. Hence, eight weeks' time is granted to appellant to demolish the balcony on his own. There shall be no demolition at the instance of the Municipal Corporation for eight weeks from today. J UDGE kahale