1 CA.258.11-AO.745.08-259.11-CA.875.08- AO.746.98.sxw mnm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 258 OF 2011 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.745 OF 2008 Peter Cyril D’Costa ...Appllicant (Orig.Plaintiff) Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay & Ors. ...Respondents(Orig.Defdts.) Mr. R.G. Megh i/b. Mr. R.O. Pathale, Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. K.K. Soran for BMC WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.259 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 875 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.746 OF 2008 Gyandevi Sanjay Kumar Pandey ...Appellant (Orig.Plaintiff) Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay & Ors. ...Respondents(Orig.Defdts.) Mr. R.G. Megh i/b. Mr. R.O. Pathale, Advocate for the Applicant Mrs. K.K. Soran for BMC CORAM : SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATED : 16TH AUGUST, 2011 P.C. : 1. The applicants/appellants have challenged the notice issued by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation under Section 351 of the Mumbai 2 CA.258.11-AO.745.08-259.11-CA.875.08- AO.746.98.sxw Municipal Corporation Act in the trial Court. He/she failed to obtain an order of ad-interim injunction as he/she made out no prima facie case. The total lack of prima facie case was seen from the due process of law which the MMC followed. 2. Upon the notice issued the appellants/applicants filed his/her reply. The reply mentions about how the appellants came into possession and for how long the appellants were in possession as the tenants. The reply has not set out any documentary evidence whatsoever. No reply with regard to any structure can substantiate any case for immovable property without documentary evidence. Hence the DMC rightly considered that the appellant has not shown either regularisation or authorised construction of his/her structure. That order is correct. 3. Consequently, the ad-interim relief is correctly refused. Hence the appeal from order has no merit and is dismissed. 4. In view of the dismissal the civil applications does not survive and are also dismissed. (SMT. ROSHAN DALVI, J.)