1 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10130 OF 2009 Haresh Laxmichand Samani ...Petitioner vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Atul Singh i/b Mr.D.R.Shah for the petitioner None for the respondents CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : MAY 3, 2010 P.C.: 1 Notice for final disposal of the petition was issued by this Court on 8 th February 2010. Office noting shows that the respondents have been duly served with the notice. 2 The Petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants. A suit for declaration is filed by the petitioner seeking a declaration that notice issued under section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act,1888 by the first respondent as well as order passed thereon are illegal and bad in law. Perpetual injunction is prayed for restraining the first respondent from demolishing the suit structure. The suit structure has been described in paragraph 1 of the plaint. A Chamber Summons for amendment of the plaint was taken out by the petitioner. Amendment prayed for was for correction of the description of the suit property. In the plaint, suit property has been described as Garage/Gala no.4 in Kiran Building no.4, Parsi Panchayat Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. The correction is sought for substituting the Garage/Gala no.4 by gala no.3. The second prayer in the chamber summons is for correcting the description of the 2 suit property in the order passed on the notice of motion for temporary injunction. By the impugned order said chamber summons has been dismissed. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is pressing the petition only for amendment of the plaint for substituting Gala no.3 in place of no.4. He states that the said garage/gala no.3 has been already demolished and therefore, the petitioner will have to file appropriate proceeding for restoration of the structure. 4 A suit was filed in the year 2006. Before commencement of hearing, the Chamber Summons was taken out for correcting the number of suit garage/gala. The said amendment ought to have been allowed. It must be noted here that Notice of Motion no.2509 of 2006 was filed in the present suit. Notice of Motion was partly allowed by granting injunction in respect of the garage/gala no.4. As a consequence of amendment of the plaint, the said order will become inoperative as the present suit does not relate to garage/gala no.4. 5 Hence, I pass the following order : i) Impugned order is quashed and set aside. ii)The Chamber Summons No.377 of 2009 is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).Prayer (b) of the Chamber Summons is rejected. iii)It is made clear that the Judgment and Order dated 10 th July 2009 passed in the Notice of Motion no. 2509 of 2006 is rendered inoperative as relief granted therein relates to garage/gala no.4. It is made clear that the said order of injunction will not operate hereinafter. Amendment to be carried out 3 within a period of two weeks from the date on which writ of this order is received by the trial Court. iv)It will be open for the petitioner to file appropriate proceeding as it is stated that garage/gala no.3 is already demolished. v) Civil application no. 307 of 2010 does not survive and the same disposed of. JUDGE