1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.556 OF 2010 Mohammed Sahid s/o Ismail Shikilkar .... Appellant (Ori. plaintiff) Vs. The Municipal Corporation of .... Respondents Greater Mumbai (Ori. defendants) Mr. R.R.Sharma, Advocate for appellant. Mr. J.J. Xavier, Advocate for respondenta. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 16th April, 2010 P.C. 1. This appeal is preferred to challenge correctness and legality of judgment and decree dated 24th February 2010, dismissing the suit filed by the appellant for permanent injunction simplicitor to restrain the Corporation from demolishing the suit premises without following due process of law. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal is being disposed off finally at the stage of the admission. Records and proceedings as well as the paper book is dispensed with. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the impugned judgment are as follows : 2 The appellant claims to be residing and carrying on business in the suit premises, which is a structure admeasuring 650 sq.ft. on plot no.64, survey no.107, CTS No.777, Jawahar Nagar, Goregaon (West), Mumbai, since last several years. Admittedly the appellant has no legal right to the land, on which his structure is situated. The plaint does not specify the period of existence of the suit structure. According to the appellant, the structure is independent of the adjoining structure belonging to his father. The respondent-Corporation had issued a notice under Section 351 Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act dated 29th October 2003 in respect of the father s structure admeasuring 1150 sq. ft.. The final order on the ’ show cause notice was passed on 15th January 2009. This order came to be challenged by the father by filing Suit No.459 of 2005. Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court, in appeal arising out of interim application in the suit, the appellant s father had filed application dated ’ 10th May 2004 to the Office of Additional Collector, (Encroachment) in respect of his structure. After giving hearing to the father, the Additional Collector (Encroachment) passed order dated 26th May 2006 holding that the father s structure to the extent of 500 sq. ft. alone was authorised. ’ Then, the office of Additional Collector by letter dated 4th December 2006 directed the father to restrict the area of the structure to 500 sq. ft. and removed the excess area of 650 sq. ft. as per the notice issued under 3 Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act. After this intimation was received by the father, the appellant herein filed suit for perpetual injunction as mentioned above. Perusal of the plaint, a copy of which is annexed to the appeal memo shows that it is absolutely devoid of particulars as regards the structure admeasuring 650 sq.ft. The plaint does not mention when and how the structure came to be in existence. Without these particulars, it would be impossible to establish that the suit structure is an independent structure and not part of the father s’ structure. It is pertinent to note the case of the appellant is that his alleged independent structure admeasures exactly the area which was required to be removed by the father. It is not the case of the appellant that the suit structure is not adjoining and attached to the father s’ structure. It is also not his case that the other part of his father s’ structure is actually in existence apart from his structure. In these circumstances, the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant has failed to establish that his structure is an independent structure and that there is any threat from the respondent-Corporation of demolition of the structure without following due process of law. The suit filed by the appellant was nothing but an attempt on the part of appellant to scuttle the process of law followed by the respondent- Corporation in respect of an unauthorised structure. In these circumstances, the appeal is dismissed. 4 4. In view of the dismissal of the First Appeal, the Civil Application No.1322 of 2010 does not survive, the same is accordingly dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota,J)