IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO 30 OF 2009 1. Daji Narayan Hatankar and Others .. Appellants V/s. 1. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Another .. Respondents Mr. P.H. Kulkarni & S.M. Sakhardande for the Appellants Mr. Vinod Mahadik for Respondent No. 1 Shri. Abhay Patki for Respondent No. 2. CORAM : U.D.SALVI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 11th,2009. P.C. 1. Heard. Perused the memo of Appeal and accompanying compilations. Ld. Advocate Kulkarni for the Appellants submitted that present Appeal has been moved against the judgment and decree of dismissal of suit LCC No. 97 of 2005 by the Ad-hoc District Judge-2 & Additional Session Judge, Borivali Division, Dindoshi Mumbai mainly on the ground that the Ld. Trial Court erred in appreciating 1 the fact of existence of suit structure prior to datum line as these structures were purchased from one Gokuldas Shah in the year 1975. Chronology of the events points out the checkered history of the structure in question. It appears that one of the structures was demolished in the year 1987-88 in pursuance to the undertaking given by the Plaintiff / Appellant Daji Hatankar and the second structure in respect of which suit notices were issued was demolished on 18.01.2005. 2. Shri. Abhay Patki for Respondent No. 2 points out prima facie observations of this Court regarding suit structure while disposing of A.O. 1016 of 2005 that the Municipal Corporation had demolished all the structures on 18.01.2005 but the Plaintiffs / Appellants had re- erected the part of structure and were claiming demolition of only part of the structure and not the entire structure; and that the Plaintiffs / Appellants were dishonest persons who were bent upon reconstructing the structures more than once after its demolition. 2 3. On this background, nothing has been shown by the Appellants / Plaintiffs to suggest the existence of structures in question prior to the datum line. The Learned Trial Court has held that suit is not maintainable for want of statutory notice under Section 557 of B.M.C Act and Plaintiffs / Appellants were : 1. indulging in gross abuse of process of law, 2. Plaintiffs / Appellants had reconstructed the structure after its demolition, 3. The Plaintiffs / Appellants had violated the undertaking given to the Hon' ble High Court to remove the structures and the Plaintiffs / Appellants failed to prove that the impugned notices and orders were illegal or bad in law. In the given circumstances, Appellants / Plaintiffs do not deserve any further indulgence by way of present Appeal for protecting illegal structures. Appeal is dismissed in limine [U.D.SALVI, J.] 3 4