1 ao 72-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 72 OF 2011 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2899 OF 2010 IN L.C. SUIT NO. 2597 OF 2010 Maneklal N. Shah alias Kothari ...Appellant (Plaintiff) vs. Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ...Respondent (Orig.Defendant) Mr.Tushar Garodia for the Appellant. Mrs.K.K. Soran for the BMC. Mr.Redkar, Sub-Engineer, D-Ward of BMC present. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATED : JANUARY 21, 2011 P.C :- 1 The appellant challenges the Order dated 15th December, 2010 vide which the Notice of Motion filed by the present appellant in Long Cause Suit No.2597/2010 came to be rejected. 2 It is the contention of the appellant that 2 ao 72-2011 the notice issued to the appellant is pertaining to Shop No.6, Ground Floor, Raman Smruti, V.P. Road, and with respect to the said property, at earlier point of time, a notice was issued on 24th March, 1975. It is his contention that with respect to the said notice, the father of the petitioner was required to file Long Cause Suit No.3266/1975 and in the said suit, since the statement was made on behalf of the Corporation that notice is being withdrawn, the suit was also withdrawn. It is his contention that in spite of this position, the learned trial court has refused to grant injunction in respect of the suit property. 3 The learned Counsel for the Corporation, on instructions from Shri Redkar, Sub-Engineer, D-Ward makes a categorical statement that the notice issued to the petitioner is not pertaining to Shop no.6 but a construction made on the open space. 4 In that view of the matter, I find that the 3 ao 72-2011 appellant s grievance insofar as the Shop no.6 is concerned, the same does not survive. 5 The appeal is, therefore, disposed by taking on record the statement made by the learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation. 6 In view of the disposal of the appeal, nothing survives in the Civil Application. Same is also disposed of. (B.R. GAVAI, J.)