1 fa-790-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL No. 790/2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2182/2010 Mr Raju S. Sabnis .. .. .. Appellant. versus B.M.C. .. .. .. Respondent. Mr S. K. Sthalekar, for the Appellant. Mr Vinod Mahadik, for the Respondent-BMC. CORAM:- A. P. BHANGALE, J. DATE :- 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Parities were put to notice for final hearing of this appeal at the stage of admission itself, pursuant to the order, dated 24.6.2010, passed by this Court. 2. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 1.4.2010, passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, at Bombay in L.C. Suit No.2915 of 2002. The appellant and his Advocate remained absent. 3. Learned Advocate representing respondent-Municipal Corporation of Greater L 2 fa-790-10 Mumbai submitted that the suit structure is situated in compulsory open space in respect of which notice under Section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was issued to the plaintiff (appellant). It is also contended that after receiving the reply from the plaintiff (appellant), the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, Greater Mumbai has passed order of demolition of the suit structure which was unauthorized situated in compulsory open space. 4. The learned Trial Judge recorded finding that the plaintiff was unable to prove that the impugned notice was illegal and not binding upon him. Consequently, relief of declaration and injunction sought against the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai was denied. 5. After considering the impugned judgment and finding of fact i.e.suit structure is situated in compulsory open space and further that there was no evidence to show its existence since prior to datum line i.e. 1962 and that the suit structure was constructed without written permission from the Municipal Corporation as required by law, no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order which resulted in dismissal of the suit. No ground is made out for interference. In view of the contentions advanced on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, the appeal has no merit and it stands dismissed along with Civil Application No. 2182/2010. (A. P. BHANGALE, J) L