1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 593 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. OF 2008 IN S.C.SUIT NO. 1261 OF 2008 Shri Balihari Shivbachan Prajapati .......Appellants Verus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and anr. ........Respondents Mr.S.K.Dubey, adv.for appellants. Ms.Geeta Joglekar, adv.for respondents. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 4 th August, 2008. P.C. : 1. Rule. By consent of parties, taken up for hearing forthwith. Heard both the advocates. 2. This appeal is preferred against the rejection of ad-interim reliefs by the court of City Civil and Sessions. The appellant was issued notice dated 13th March, 2008 under Section 351 of the Mumbai Municipal 2 Corporation Act alleging unauthorized construction of the ground floor structure admeasuring 16'.2” X 9'.2” X (10'.9” average height) with B.M.Walls and A.C. Sheet Roof as shown in the sketch drawn in the notice. The sketch shows that according to the Corporation, the appellants' structure is affected by 10 mts wide road being constructed by the Corporation connecting to Saki Vihar Road. 3. Mr.Dubey, the learned advocate for the appellant relies upon a City Survey Plan and submits that since the suit structure has been shown therein in black colour the same is an authorised structure. The certified copy of the city survey plan for C.T.S.No.35A is produced. It shows a line of structures with varying dimensions located on C.T.S.No.35A. Mr.Dubey points out the third structure as the suit structure. The plaint however describes the location of the suit structure as C.T.S.No.120 of village- Tungva, Taluka-Kurla. When this is pointed out, Mr.Dubey states that the description of the suit structure in the plaint is, as standing on C.T.S.No.120 is erroneous. The description ought to have been as structure standing on C.T.S.No.35A. According to the respondent the structure is neither on C.T.S.No.120 nor on C.T.S.No.35A but in on C.T.S.No.37. Further, it is an independent structure. Mrs.Joglekar for the Corporation has produced the entire plan of C.T.S.No.35 and 3 C.T.S.No.120. The plan shows that there is no structure standing in C.T.S.No.120 whereas on C.T.S.No.35A there are series of structure. The City Survey Plan produced by the Corporation clearly shows that the structure of the appellant is on C.T.S.No.37 and it is an independent structure, which would actually be affected by the Kurla Vihar road. 4. The plaintiff had produced before the Trial Court, notices issued under Section 37(2) of Land Revenue Code by the competent authority in respect of C.T.S.No.120. Mr.Dubey states that even that notice erroneously mentions the location of the suit structure as C.T.S.No.120 and it ought to have been C.T.S.No.35A. It appears that the appellant has on 4th August, 2008 made an application for correction in the notice. The notices under Section 37(2) of the Land Revenue code were issued by the competent authority on noticing construction of structure at a particular site. If, the appellant claims that his structure is not at the location mentioned in the notice, he has to only defend the notice on that ground. It is not for him to ask for correction of the location in the notice. 5. I have perused the reasons given by the trial court for refusing the ad-interim order. I am of the opinion, that there is no need to interfere with the same. In any case the appellant will have an 4 opportunity to establish his case before the trial court, at the time of hearing of the notice of Motion. Hence the appeal from order is dismissed. 6. Mr.Dubey prays for continuation of the ad-interim order in the appeal. The application is rejected. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J]