1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1125 OF 2008 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 294 OF 2008 Smt.Sandhya Anant Zapdekar .......Appellant Verus The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Gr.Mumbai & Ors. ........Respondents Mr.V.S.Kapse, adv.for appellant. Mrs.Geeta Joglekar, adv.for respondents. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 18 th September, 2008. P.C. : 1. This Civil Application is taken out for recalling the order dated 31st March 2008 by which the present Appeal and Civil Application No. 349 of 2008 were finally disposed off. By the said order, the appellant was directed to file an application on/or before 30th April, 2008 for regularisation of the disputed structure. The application was to be accompanied by necessary documents including those mentioned in the communication dated 19th November, 2007 from the Executive Engineer Building Proposal (City-III). The respondent- 2 Corporation was directed to consider the application and dispose the same off within a specified period. 2. About six months thereafter, the appellant takes out the present Civil Application for recalling the order on the ground that it is not possible for the appellant to obtain copies of the documents referred to in the communication dated 19th November, 2007 of the Executive Engineer Building Proposal (City- III). The appellant has not made application for regularisation till date. Thus, it is seen that she has not complied with the order dated 31st March, 2008. Mr.Kapse, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the nature of the documents described in the said communication are such, that it is impossible for the appellant to get hold of the same. The application does not mention what were the efforts made by the appellant, after the order dated 31st March, 2008 to obtain copies of the documents. As per para-10 of the application, the appellant approached an Architect, namely, M/s.Khadilkar Associates and handed over papers for making an application for regularisation. The application does not disclose the date on which the Architect was approached. On a specific query made by the court, after some probing, Mr.Kapse has come out with a vague statement that the Architect was approached sometime prior to 30th April, 2008. Para-12 of the Application shows that the first move towards collecting the documents required to be sent alongwith the application for regularisation was made by the appellant only on 17th July, 2008. The 3 present application does not offer any kind of explanation for total negligence and inaction on the part of the appellant in taking advantage of the order dated 31st March, 2008. Mr.Kapse, pleads that the appellant is a widow and working as an Aaya and submits that she has a disadvantage in getting the documents. The appellant has admitted that she has carried out the unauthorised construction as described in the notice under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. She withdrew the suit filed by her to challenge the notice and chose to go for regularisation of the unauthorised structure. Even in the matter of application for regularisation, she is totally indolent. In the circumstances, there is no case made out for recalling the order dated 31st March, 2009. Hence, Civil Application is dismissed. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J]