1 caf737 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.737 OF 2011 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.1834 OF 2010 Vimal Govind Sawant ...Applicant vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent Mr.A.G.Damle for the applicant Mr.Vinod Mahadik for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : JULY 29, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the applicant for challenging the notice under section 354-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888. During the pendency of the suit, the suit structure was demolished and the plaint was amended seeking relief of restoration of the suit structure. By the impugned decree, the suit has been dismissed. 2 The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that impugned notice was not a notice for demolition but notice alleges that the applicant has carried out unauthorized extension. He submits that on the basis of the notice not only the alleged extended portion but entire suit structure has been demolished. His submission is that there was no 2 caf737 notice in respect of the entire structure and therefore, the order for reconstruction may be passed pending the appeal. 3 I have carefully considered the submissions. One of the findings recorded by the Trial Court is that the applicant could not establish that the suit structure was in existence before the datum line. The finding of the Trial Court is that the entire suit structure was unauthorized and illegal. 49 Hence, after dismissal of the suit, pending the final disposal of the Appeal, the drastic relief sought in the application cannot be granted. Hence, application is rejected. Hearing of the Appeal is expedited. JUDGE