ladda IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER No.533 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION No. 649 OF 2009 Rajnikant M Shah and Ors ..Appellants. vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors ..Respondents. Mr I. M. Vohra i/b Shri Bipin Joshi , Advocate for the appellants. Mr R.A.Malandkar, Advocate for the B.M.C. Mr M.M.Shetty, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI,J DATED : 30TH SEPTEMBER,2009 P.C.:- 1. Rule, returnable forthwith by consent of parties. 2. Heard rival parties for some time. 3. It is the appeal from order filed by the original plaintiffs against the order of City Civil Court, Mumbai rejecting the prayer of the plaintiffs for ad-interim relief of injunction against the respondents-original defendants (B.M.C., and M.M.R.D.A.). The said impugned order came to be passed on 14.5.2009 and the matter was taken before the Vacation Court in summer vacation on 20.5.2009. However, by that time, the suit structure was already demolished by Respondent No.2 (M.M.R.D.A.) and it was so made known to this Court and amendment was sought for suitable prayers for giving directions to the respondents in the nature of mandatory directions for reconstruction of the suit premises. It appears that the original plaintiffs  present petitioners are claiming their right over the two structures through one late Smt Bharti Shah, the deceased wife of the appellant No.1 and mother of the appellant Nos.2 and 3. It appears that without there being any authentic document showing the structure lawfully constructed, certain papers were produced before the City Civil Court while asking for ad-interim injunction against the respondents-defendants. According to M.M.R.D.A., the entire area of Ghatkopar where the two structures were situated is ear marked under Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project (MUIP) and MMRDA had undertaken the work relating to the improvement of the area so as to widening, concretization, construction of drainage, footpath, etc. Also, according to the MMRDA, the plaintiffs at the most can ask for rehabilitation by way of allotment of one residential premises of 225 sq. ft or one commercial premises of 89 sq. ft subject to the eligibility and according to the M.M.R.D.A.,the plaintiffs have refused to accept the said alternate structure. It appears that considering the rival contentions the Trial Court did not even grant ad-interim injunction and which is rightly so, in view of this Court, considering the potential of the case putforth by the plaintiffs. Needless to mention that granting or otherwise of the injunctive relief is discretionary and if at all the structure of the plaintiff is now demolished as submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs, always there could be granting of compensation according to law and for which there cannot be any prayer for reconstruction of already demolished premises, much less granting of injunction for already non existing structure. 4. In view of the above factual and legal position, there is nothing to interfere with the order impugned, so also there is nothing to give any specific mandatory directions for reconstruction of any such demolished structure. If any rights are available to the plaintiffs for redressing their grievances before the M.M.R.D.A.,the said Authority shall deal with such prayers according to law and without being influenced by the observations of this Court. Rule is discharged. With these directions present Appeal from Order stands dismissed. Civil Application No.649/2009 also dismissed accordingly and disposed of. (A.R.JOSHI,J)