:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1253 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1253 OF 2008 APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1253 OF 2008 Along with Civil Application No.1538 of 2008 Dayanand Shekhar Suvarna, .. Appellant Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, .. Respondent. Mr.S.P.Srivastava, for the appellant. Mr Vinod Mahadik i/b Mr.R.A.Malandkar, for the respondents. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. CORAM : D.B.BHOSALE, J. DATED : 25th MARCH, 2009. DATED : 25th MARCH, 2009. DATED : 25th MARCH, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This appeal from order is directed against an order dated 14.11.2008 passed by the City Civil Court Bombay, dismissing the Notice of motion taken out by the appellant-plaintiff seeking injunction restraining the Bombay Municipal Corporation from enforcing their notice under section 354-A of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. :2: :2: :2: 3. I have perused the impugned order. In paragraph 6 of the impugned order, the Civil Court has made the following observations: "Now we have to see whether the plaintiff has proved all necessary requirements to claim temporary injunction under order 39 rule 2 of CPC. Plaintiffs own case is that he has carried out repairs to the suit gala. Even in reply dated 14.12.2007 filed by plaintiff before the officer of defendant he (Plaintiff) has asserted that he has carried out repairs of gala (Mezzanine floor). Plaintiff has filed on record agreement for sale and deed of assignment executed by his predecessor in title Mr Mohd Sulemman s/o Ismail Ansari. This documents does not show that there was mezzanine floor from these documents, it appears that he has never paid the municipal taxes for mezzanine floor. It seems that Mezzanine floor is also not assessed. Thus, from the plaintiffs own case it appears that he has recently made construction of mezzanine floor. No document is filed on record to show that plaintiff has obtained permission from defendants to construct the mezzanine floor." In the course of hearing of the appeal, I asked the learned Advocate for the appellant to produce documents to show that the mezzanine floor was in existence. However, he could not produce a single document in support of this contention. I find absolutely no fault with the order warranting interference by this Court in the Appeal from order. The Appeal from order is rejected. As a consequence thereof, the civil application also stands disposed :3: :3: :3: of. 4. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant prayed for stay of this order. Stay is rejected. (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.)