IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.446 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO.446 OF 2008 FROM ORDER NO.446 OF 2008 IN IN IN NOTICE NOTICE NOTICE OF MOTION NO.412 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.412 OF 2008 OF MOTION NO.412 OF 2008 IN IN IN L.C. L.C. L.C. SUIT NO.401 OF 2008 SUIT NO.401 OF 2008 SUIT NO.401 OF 2008 Chinchpokali Nagrik Sahakari ..Appellants Grahak Sanstha Ltd., (Orig.Plaintiffs) V/s. Municipal Corporation of Gr.Bombay ..Respondents (Orig.Defendants) Shri Prakash G. Lad for Appellants Ms. Geeta Jogalekar for Respondents CORAM : S.J. VAZIFDAR, J. DATED : 5TH JUNE, 2008. P.C. : . I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, which has considered in detail the rival contentions. The suit is filed to impugn the notice under Section 314 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act. It pertains to a structure admeasuring 22 Ft.X 18 Ft. 2. The appellants contention is that the structure was not in existence prior to the datum line namely the year 1962. In this regard, reliance was placed on a letter dated 13th June, 1961, which is a notice under Section 351 in respect of a structure admeasuring 15 Ft. X 20 Ft. This by itself does not indicate conclusively that the two structures are different. However, it is important to note that in the proceedings, it has been pleaded that the structure was constructed in the year 1995-1996. 3. Faced with this, it was contended that the same was a typographical error in that the word "acquire" ought to have been used. It is difficult to accept this explanation. As set out by the learned Judge especially in paragraph 8 of the impugned order, the correspondence prior to the impugned notice contains various submissions regarding the structure having been constructed only in the year 1995-1996. 4. In the circumstances, the Appeal from Order is dismissed.