1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.24 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 24 OF 2009 Aakaram Namdeo Patil : Appellant versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai : Respondents. Shri.R.A.Thorat i/by Shri.B.P.Shukla for the Appellant. Ms.K.K.Soraan for the Respondents. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 12, 2009 P.C. 1. The above appeal takes exception to the order dated 6th December 2008 passed by a learned Judge of the City Civil Court, Borivali Division, Dindoshi, Mumbai. By the said order the Notice of Motion filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff came to be dismissed. The said Notice of Motion was filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff for a temporary 2 injunction restraining the Defendants from acting upon the notice issued by the Respondents-Corporation under Section 313 (1)(a) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act dated 23rd October 2008 and demolishing the suit structure. 2. The trial Court on the basis of the material, which was on record, came to a conclusion that the Appellant/Plaintiff taking advantage of the injunction order passed by that court, has put up a stall on the Nala/Culvert. The trial Court considered the documents in the nature of receipts produced by the Appellant/Plaintiff and rejected the said documents as the same were in respect of the penalty imposed upon the Appellant/Plaintiff by the Defendants- Corporation for encroachment upon a public place. In so far as the document in the nature of a receipt dated 12th March 1991 produced by the Appellant/Plaintiff to show his possession is concerned, the same was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that the Ward in question i.e. R-West Ward came into existence only in the year 2000 and further the said receipt was bogus. The trial Court also recorded 3 a finding that though the documents are in respect of one temparary bench covered with sack, the Plaintiff is now claiming injunction in respect of a big stall. The trial Court also recorded a finding that though the documents are in respect of vegetable vendee, the Plaintiff is claiming reliefs showing the business of Poli-Bhaji Center and that the structure is a recent structure. 3. The notice under Section 313 (1)(a) of the said Act was issued to the Appellant/Plaintiff on account of the complaints made by the local residents to the concerned Ward Office of the Defendants- Corporation as the Plaintiff/Appellant had carried out a construction on the Nala/Culvert across Yogi Road. 4. In my view, the reasons and the findings recorded by the trial Court in rejecting the said Notice of Motion are unexceptionable and do not call for any interference. The above Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. 4 5. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal, the Civil Application No.24 of 2009 does not survive and the same is disposed of as such. [R.M.SAVANT, J]