* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 377 OF 2009 IN L.C.SUIT NO.6134 OF 2003 Shri.Dada Bhayaji Patil ....Appellant (Orig.Plaintiff) V/s. 1. Bhaguram Sudkoji Tambe & Ors. 2. Smt.Sushma Tambe 3. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. ....Respondents (Orig.Defendants) ======== Mr.T.D.Deshmukh,advocate for appellant. Mr.Manoj Upadhaya h/f.Mr.Vilas Jadhav,adv.for respondents. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 15TH JULY, 2009. P.C. : 1. Heard counsel for both sides. In the facts and circumstances of the case, Records and Proceedings are dispensed with. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 3th August, 2006 passed by the Bombay City Civil and Sessions Court in L.C.Suit No.6134 of 2003. The said suit was * 2 * filed by the appellant against the respondents for a mandatory order directing respondent no.3, Mumbai Municipal Corporation to reconstruct room admeasuring 10 ft x 16 ft demolished by it pursuant to the notice under Section 55 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966. The appellant claims that he is entitled to an order of reconstruction because the suit structure was tolerated structure. According to him, this structure had been in existence since prior to the year 1995 and as such was a tolerated structure as per the policy of respondent no.3. The appellant heavily relies upon his ration card to establish his occupation of the premises since prior to the year 1995. The zerox copy of the ration card is annexed to the appeal proceedings which shows that ration card issued in the year 1992 to the appellant had some address at Patel Chawl and not Kamraj compound. On the basis of this ration card the appellant has obtained another ration card after surrendering the same, xerox copy of which is at page 122. The second ration card was issued sometime in the year 1999. None of the other documents produced by the plaintiff are of the year prior to 1999. The trial court has considered the documents produced by the appellant and observed that there is no record to show that the demolished structure was constructed with the permission of respondent no.3 or that it had been in existence since prior to * 3 * the year 1995. In the circumstances, there is no question arising whether of fact or law arising for consideration of this court. Hence, the First Appeal is dismissed in limine. 3. With the disposal of the Appeal, Civil Application No.1497 of 2007 does not survive. The same is also dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]