1 AOG-137.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.137 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.198 OF 2010 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.137 OF 2010 Ramlal Devaji Rathod .... Appellant Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .... Respondents Shri P.J. Thorat for the Appellant. Ms K.K. Soraan for the Respondent-BMC. Shri J.N. Jayale for Respondent No.3. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: AUGUST 03, 2010 P.C: 1. This appeal is directed against an order passed by a learned Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai, on a notice of motion in L.C. Suit No.l09 of 2010. It is the appellant s case, first, that the notice issued by the Municipal Corporation shows the address as Kantilal Mehta Chawl whereas the appellant resides at Mahadev Singh Chawl No.1. The appellant was already told on 15-6-2010 itself 2 AOG-137.10 that if the structure in respect of which notice is issued is not his structure, he need not bother about the wrong address since he states that the notice was pasted on his house. The notice also gave a sketch which shows the location of the structure and, therefore, the appellant need not harbour any doubt as to whether the notice pertains to his structure or not. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that the structure in question is in fact a loft which was in existence since 1991 and since the area is a slum, the structure is protected. He submitted that the learned trial Judge should not have relied upon some photographs which were produced by the respondents without any affidavit and should not have refused ad-interim relief. The learned counsel for the appellant also made available for my perusal some photographs of his structure, one of which shows that the appellant is standing near a motorcycle. The height of the ground floor structure can also be seen and the structure which is raised above that can also be seen in the photograph. In any case, it is not necessary to go into all these aspects right now. It cannot be said that the 3 AOG-137.10 learned trial Judge erred in refusing ad- interim relief and posting the notice of motion for hearing. The impugned order, therefore, does not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed. The appellant would address the trial Court on the motion which the learned trial Judge may dispose of as early as possible. 3. The parties may be allowed to take back the originals after substituting the same with zerox copies thereof. 4. Since the main appeal itself has been dismissed, Civil Application No.198 of 2010 also stands dismissed. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)