1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL STAMP NO.13443 OF 2010 IN L.C.SUIT NO.448 OF 2008 Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai .. Appellant V/s. Smt.Beena K.Singh .. Respondent Mr.Vinod Mahadik for the Appellant. Ms. Asha Limhan i/by Mr.V. J.Hegde for the Respondent. CORAM : R.G.KETKAR,J. DATE : 21st July, 2010 P.C.: 1. Not on board. Mentioned. 2. Heard Mr.Mahadik, learned counsel for the Appellant and Ms.Limhan, learned counsel for the Respondent. Appellant has preferred the above appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 4th May, 2010 passed by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-2, City Civil Court, , Dindoshi, (Borivali Division), Mumbai, in L.C.Suit No.448 of 2008. By that judgment the learned trial Judge remanded the matter to the Appellant herein for fresh consideration and decision of authorization of notice structure subject to certain conditions. 3. One of the grievances of the Respondent-Plaintiff was that she is in possession of the approved plan and the same was received by her after order dated 26th February, 2008 passed by the Assistant Municipal Commissioner. She therefore could not produce the said plain before the Asstt.Municipal Commissioner. The Asstt.Municipal Commissioner was of the opinion that since the Respondent was unable to produce any evidence to prove the authorization of the notice structure about its existence prior to 1st April, 2002, he ordered the demolition of the notice structure. 4. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Judge directed the 2 Respondents to approach the Appellant within 15 days from the date of that order and to file fresh reply and tender all documents in her possession establishing the authorization of the notice structure. The Commissioner of the Appellant was directed to consider the reply and the documents and decide the legality of the notice structure within one month from the date of the filing of the reply and the documents, on merits and in accordance with law, and communicate the decision to the Respondent within one week thereafter. It was further made clear that if any adverse order is passed, the Respondent would be at liberty to challenge the said order after giving 48 hours advance notice to the Appellant herein. 5. It is not in dispute that the learned Advocate for the Respondent has pointed out to the trial Court that the Respondent is in possessi0on of the approved plan and the same was received by her after passing the order on 26th February, 2008. Obviously, the Respondent could not produce the said document when the Asstt.Municipal Commissioner gave hearing. Mr.Mahadik, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that instead of directing the Municipal Commissioner to decide the authorization of the notice structure, the Asstt.Municipal Commissioner K-East Ward may be permitted to decide the same. The learned counsel for the Respondent has no objection for adopting the said course. 6. In view of this, appeal is disposed of with the modifications in the order dated 4th May, 2010 passed by the learned trial Judge, as follows:- (i) Respondent is directed to approach the Asstt. Municipal Commissioner K-East Ward within two weeks from today. The Respondent shall file her reply and tender all the documents in her possession, if not already filed. (ii)The Asstt. Municipal Commissioner K-East Ward shall consider the reply and the documents produced by the Respondent and decide the authorization of the notice structure within one month after filing of the reply and the documents by the Respondent, on 3 merits, and in accordance with the law. The Asstt.Municipal Commissioner shall communicate his decision to the Respondent within one week thereafter. (iii) If any adverse order is passed against the Respondent, she will be at liberty to challenge the same after giving 48 hours advance notice to the Appellant herein. 7. Subject to the above modifications in the order passed by the learned trial Judge, the Appeal stands disposed of, however with no order as to costs. (R.G.KETKAR,J.)