:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.170 OF 2006 Thane Municipal Corporation Thane, through its Commissioner .. Appellant. Vs. Sunil Sitaram Manohar & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.R.S.Apte for the appellant. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATED : 7TH AUGUST, 2007. DATED : 7TH AUGUST, 2007. DATED : 7TH AUGUST, 2007. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The defendant has filed this appeal challenging the judgments of the courts below by which the respondent-plaintiffs’ suit stands decreed. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs against the notice issued by the Corporation under section 264 of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act,1949 (for short "the B.P.M.C. Act") requiring the plaintiffs as well as the owner to demolish the suit building since it was found to have become dangerous due to its dilapidated condition. The impugned notices were issued on 21.11.1995 and 11.1.1996. I am informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that during pendency of the appeal one more notice under section 264 of B.P.M.C. Act in respect of the very same structure has been issued recently. Keeping that in :2: :2: :2: view and considering the findings of fact recorded by the courts below, no case for interference is made out. No substantial question of law is either raised or involved. The second appeal is dismissed. The dismissal of the appeal shall not preclude the Corporation from prosecuting the notice issued pending this proceedings under section 264 of B.P.M.C. Act or from issuing a fresh notice on the ground that the building in question has become dangerous due to its dilapidated condition. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)