1 SA 217/10 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO. 217 OF 2010 Shri. Sanjiv Vasant Shinde ... Appellant Versus Shri. Sudhir Ganpatrao Shinde and Ors. ... Respondents Smt. Asha M. Bhambwani for the Appellant. Mr. Tanaji Mhatungude i/by Mr. A.V. Anturkar for Respondents. CORAM : N.D. DESHPANDE,J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 03, 2010. P.C. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. 2. Respondent No. 4 is Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune. The appellant herein is original defendant No. 2 in Civil Suit No. 73 of 1997. The second appeal is airing out of the said suit. The said suit came to be filed by Respondent No. 1 to 3 as Plaintiffs, initially against Pune Municipal Corporation for certain relief of injunction against the notices issued by P.MC. dated 8.11.1996 and 31.12.1996 for demolition 2 SA 217/10 of “chajja” described as an unauthorised construction. The said notice is the subject matter of the suit. 3. Admittedly, the Corporation at the behest of the present Appellant/original Defendant No. 2 issued impugned notices when it was pointed out that the “chajja” newly constructed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 herein was an encroachment and the Corporation alleged it to be unauthorised construction. The appellant filed an application for intervention in the said suit filed in the trial court and supported the action of the Municipal Corporation, Pune in the matter of taking action of demolition of unauthorised “chajja” construction. It is also found that prior to this suit, the Appellant/original Defendant No. 2 filed civil suit against the present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 bearing Suit No. 865 of 1995 for removal of encroachment in the form of certain new construction of living room and study room and for vacant possession of the encroached plot area. 4. Civil Suit No. 865 of 1995 filed by the Appellant herein was dismissed by the trial court and the Appellant preferred Civil Appeal No. 484 of 2000 before District Court, Pune. The said appeal of the Appellant herein was allowed by the District Court and decree for 3 SA 217/10 removal of encroachment and for possession of encroached area was passed in favour of the Appellant herein. It is also informed that the second appeal of these respondent nos.1 to 3 is pending in this court against the aforesaid judgment and decree for removal of encroachment, which also extend to impugned construction of “chajja”. 5. Needless to say that the parties, from the nature of the dispute, are not only neighbours but in relations as cousins and the dispute appears to be one, not uncommon between two neighbours. Thus, these are two suits giving rise to two separate appeals by the parties against each other and they are based on two independent cause of actions. 6. Heard both the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree passed by both the courts below. The scope of the present appeal and the original suit is that the present Respondent Nos.1 to 3 as the original Plaintiffs had impugned notices of the Municipal Corporation (Respondent No.4 herein) in a subsequent Civil Suit No. 73 of 1997 is limited to a challenge to the notices of demolition of “chajja” as unauthorised and illegal construction over earlier disputed encroachment which is decreed in favour of the present Appellant in first Suit No.865 of 1995 by the District Court, Pune. 4 SA 217/10 7. Merely because the Appellant herein was party defendant in the suit filed by Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 against the Corporation, it does not give rise to independent cause of action to this Appellant in the matter of challenge to the notices issued by the Corporation regarding “chajja” structure at the behest of these Respondents. It has been rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 that the Appellant has not made out any case and both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings in the matter of impugned notices issued by the Municipal Corporation, Pune and it is further informed that the substantive suit for removal of encroachment between the contesting parties has been decreed by the first Appellate Court and the second appeal of Respondent Nos.1 to 3 is pending. Thus, I find no substantial question of law arises for my consideration in this appeal and the Appellant has miserably failed to make out any case. Hence, the Appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission. (N.D. DESHPANDE,J.)