IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND SECOND SECOND APPEAL NO. 1578 OF 2005. APPEAL NO. 1578 OF 2005. APPEAL NO. 1578 OF 2005. Shashimant Mahadeo Deo. ... Appellant. Versus. Pune Municipal Corporation. ... Respondent. Shri S.G.Deshmukh for the Appellant. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. : ABHAY S.OKA, J. DATED DATED DATED : 16th MARCH, 2006. : 16th MARCH, 2006. : 16th MARCH, 2006. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. The Appellant is the original Plaintiff. Notice was issued by the Respondent-Corporation to the Appellant calling upon the Appellant to remove chain link fencing and gate. The Courts below, however, found that the notice was legal and valid. The Courts have also found that the Appellant had not given statutory notice before filing the suit. 2. Having heard the Advocates appearing for the parties, I find that the decisions of the Court below are based on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record. No fault can be found with the impugned Judgments and decrees. Hence the Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 3. At this stage, Shri Deshmukh appearing for the Appellant states that the Appellant may apply for regularisation of the offending structure and therefore, : 2 : 2 : 2 : the Respondents may be directed not to act upon the notice impugned in the suit for a reasonable time. The said prayer is opposed by the learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent. 4. Notwithstanding the disposal of this Appeal, the Respondent-Corporation will not act on the notice which was challenged in the suit for a period of 10 weeks from today. Judge. Judge. Judge.