1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.78 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.99 OF 2009 Shri Subedar J Singh : Appellant versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ors. : Respondents. Shri U.B.Nighot for the Appellant. Shri J.J.Xavier for the Respondent No.1-BMC. Shri R.M.Pandey for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : JANUARY 28, 2009 P.C. 1. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 8th October 2008 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, Dindoshi, Mumbai by which order the Notice of Motion No.990 of 2008 filed by the Plaintiff for mandatory injunction came to be rejected. 2. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed a suit challenging the Notice 2 dated 4th May 2008 issued by the Respondent No.1 under Section 354(A) of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act and also for mandatory and temporary injunction against the Respondent No.1. The mandatory relief sought for by the Plaintiff is as regards reconstruction of the structure which was allegedly demolished on 4th May 2008 by the Respondent No.1 Corporation. 3. The Notice of Motion filed in the said suit for mandatory order for being permitted reconstruction of the suit structure and for two other reliefs which are contained in prayer clauses (b) and © was considered by the trial Court and by its impugned order the same came to be dismissed. 4. The trial Court on the basis of the material which was on record was of the view that the said material was not sufficient to show existence of the structure wherein the Plaintiff was allegedly running a business of auto repairs. The trial Court, therefore, did not find a prima facie case being made out by the Plaintiff and rejected the said Notice of Motion. 3 5. Having considered the reasons cited by the trial Court, in my view, the reasons are unexceptional in the context of the encroachment of the Plaintiff. In that view of the matter, no case for interference is made out. The above Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. However, the hearing of the L.C.Suit No.970 of 2008 is expedited. 6. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No. 99 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. [R.M.SAVANT, J]