1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 866 OF 2006 Prakash Devraj Shah........Appellant versus Raghunath Mahabal Rai & ors........ Respondents. Mr. S.G. Karandikar adv. for the Appellant Mr. Mr. F.A Mulla h/f S.M. Kamble adv. for the respondents 1 and 2. CORAM: RANJIT V. MORE, J. DATED : 05th DECEMBER,2008. P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Karandikar learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Mulla holding for Mr. S.M.Kamble for respondent No.1 and 2. 2. The appellant is the original defendant no.3 and the respondent nos.1 and 2 are the original plaintiffs./ Regular civil suit No.2/98 was filed for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant nos.1 and 2 namely State of Maharashtra and Tahasildar, Palghar. This suit was partly decreed and the defendant nos.1 and 2 were restrained from demolishing the suit hotel on the basis of suit notice dated 9-1-1998. The trial court's decree was challenged by the present 2 appellant as well as respondent nos.1 and 2 by filing separate appeals. The lower appellate court dismissed both the appeals. Hence defendant no.3 only filed present second appeal. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 have not challenged the decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the lower appellate court. Both the lower courts below concurrently held that the notice dated 9-1-1998 at Exh.106 was issued without following prescribed procedure. In that view of the matter I do not find any error in the finding given by the lower courts below. Second appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (R. V. More, J.)