1 fa1648 ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1648 OF 2011 Laxmibahi Ramiautan Dhobi ...Appellant vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ...Respondent Mr.Mohit Jadhav for the appellant Mr.Vinod Mahadik for the respondent CORAM : A.S.OKA,J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2011 P.C.: 1 Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. True copies of the pleadings, relevant documents on record of the Trial Court and notes of evidence have been annexed to the Memorandum of Appeal. 2 The appellant filed a suit against the respondent simplicitor for injunction restraining the respondent from demolishing the suit structure admeasuring 13 x 15 , more particularly described in the plaint without following due process of law. By the impugned Judgment and Decree, the suit has been dismissed. 3 The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the existence of the suit structure was not disputed. He submitted that a very limited relief was sought in the suit restraining the Mumbai Municipal Corporation from demolishing the suit 2 fa1648 structure without following due process of law. He, therefore, submitted that the issue of legality of the structure was not the issue in the suit. 4 I have given careful consideration to the submissions. Firstly, perusal of the plaint shows that there is no prayer that the structure should not be demolished without following due process of law. Prayer is for blanket injunction. The case made out in the plaint is that the appellant was occupying a structure situated at Gaondevi Zopadpatti, Linking Road, Goregaon (West), Mumbai 400 090. It is contended that for the purpose of road widening, the said structure was taken over by the respondent and in lieu of the said structure, the suit structure was allotted by the respondent- Corporation. Admittedly, the appellant could not produce any document to show that the suit structure was allotted by the respondent-Corporation in lieu of the other structure held by the appellant. In the cross examination, the appellant admitted that there is no document executed between herself and the respondent-Corporation as regards the suit structure. 5 Thus, the Trial Court has rightly held that the appellant could not establish that the suit structure was allotted to her in lieu of another structure held by her. The relief of perpetual injunction is always a discretionary and equitable relief. After having failed to prove the specific case pleaded in the suit, the learned Trial Judge has rightly declined to grant discretionary relief. 3 fa1648 There is no merit in the Appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. 6 Civil application no.3586 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of. JUDGE