1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1699 OF 2009 AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2136 OF 2009 IN FIRST APPEAL NO.617 OF 2005 Habibmia Abdul Majid Qureshi ... Applicant V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ... Respondent Mr. P.M. Havnur i/b. Mr. Rajesh Dixit for the Applicant. Mr. J.J. Xavier for the Respondent. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 21 ST JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Civil Applications have been taken out by the applicant-appellant. The Civil Application No.1699 of 2009 has been moved for restoring the First Appeal which was dismissed on 12th December, 2008. The Civil Application has been filed on 21st March, 2009. In this Civil Application, a prayer has been made seeking an order restraining the respondent-Corporation from demolishing the suit premises which were the subject matter of the Appeal. 2 2. The Civil Application came up initially on 16th April, 2009. The matter was then adjourned to 29th April, 2009 since the Advocate for the respondent- Corporation sought an adjournment. It appears that on that very day a letter was issued to the applicant-appellant indicating that the structure would be demolished within seven days since the High Court had dismissed the Appeal on 12th December, 2008. That letter was replied by the applicant- appellant on 18th April, 2009 indicating that the Civil Application had been adjourned to 29th April, 2009 in order to accommodate the Advocate for the respondent-Corporation. On 29th April, 2009, when the matter appeared, rule was issued. However, it appears from the record that the applicant in the Civil Application did not press prayer (c) for an injunction against the demolition of the suit premises. The matter was then moved on 13th May, 2009 by the applicant by filing a fresh Civil Application namely Civil Application No.2136 of 2009 on 25th May, 2009. 3. The Civil Application No.2136 of 2009 then appeared on board before the Vacation Judge on 26th 3 May, 2009 when it was pointed out to the learned Vacation Judge that the notices for demolition were issued on 13th May, 2009 and 18th May, 2009 and on 18th May, 2009 part of the structure had already been demolished. Since no stay was granted on 26th May, 2009, the entire structure has now been demolished. This is an accepted position by the applicant- appellant. 4. In view thereof, there is no need to restore the Appeal since the suit premises itself have been demolished and the cause of action does not exist. 5. Both the Civil Applications stand dismissed. .......