vss 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 FIRST APPEAL NO.2359 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO.2359 OF 2008 FIRST APPEAL NO.2359 OF 2008 Gangeshwar Mishra ... Appellant V/s. B.M.C. ... Respondent Mr.L.K. Tripathi for Appellant Mr.J.J. Xavier for Respondent CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED: JANUARY 19, 2009 JANUARY 19, 2009 JANUARY 19, 2009 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . This is an appeal directed against the judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court disposing off the suit filed by the appellant for mandatory injunction against the respondent Corporation with a view to have re-erection of the demolished suit structure. The Court below framed issues. One of the same being "Whether the plaintiff is entitled to reconstruct the suit premises". In paragraph 12 of the judgment, the Court has observed that the plaintiff acquired the suit structure in the year 2001. The plaintiff claims to have acquired the same from one Samuel Yakub Gudekar and it was further contended that the structure was in existence prior to 1.1.1995. The crucial question as such was as to whether the structure stood at the place prior to 1.1.1995 and as to whether the structure is censure. : 2 : The City Civil Court found that the plaintiff has chosen not to examine his vendor with a view to establish that the structure was erected prior to 1.1.1995. It is also observed that the premises in question are reserved for road widening of Link Road. It is also held that there is nothing on record to hold that the suit structure which was demolished was an authorised one. In the absence of any cogent and reliable evidence from the plaintiff, the Court has held that the plaintiff has failed to establish that the structure was constructed prior to 1.1.1995 and the same was censured. 2. Another submission made by the appellant before the Court below was that the suit structure falls in a slum area. However, no document to substantiate the said contention was filed on record and hence, the Court below concluded against the appellant. 3. The judgment and order passed by the Court below does not call for any interference as it is does not suffer from any illegality or impropriety. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant be granted liberty to approach the Respondent for reconstruction of the structure which is already demolished. 4. The appeal is thus dismissed and disposed of. : 3 : The appellant is granted liberty to approach the Corporation seeking permission for reconstruction.