IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.328 OF 2009 Navyuvak Mitra Mandal (Irla) Regd. ..... Appellant V/s. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ..... Respondent Mr.M.V.Holamagi, for the appellant. Mr.J.Xavier, for the respondent. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 18th MARCH, 2009. P.C. 1. By the above appeal, the appellant/plaintiff challenges the order dated 06-03-2009, by which order the ad-interim relief of injunction as sought by the plaintiff in the Notice of Motion filed by him, came to be refused by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court. 2. As can be seen from the para No.1 of the plaint, plaintiff claims to be Public Trust registered for the purposes of helping persons and for social activities. The plaintiff was issued notice dated 17-12-2009 under Section 351 of the B.M.C. Act, to show cause in respect of the unauthorized construction of a structure admeasuring 14.8” X 22.9” X 8” high approximately, with bricks masonry walls and A.C. Sheet roof on plot bearing CTS No.811 of Village VileParle, Opp. Fish aquarium, Irla gaothan, 2 Andheri (W), Mumbai. The plaintiff replied to the said notice by its letter dated 24-12-2008. The plaintiff also relied upon certain documents. The competent authority of the respondent-Corporation considered the reply and the documents and by an order dated 18-02-2009, rejected the said reply of the plaintiff and recording a finding that the none of the documents shows the authorization of the structure or the existence of the structure prior to the datum line of 17-04-1964. By the said order, the plaintiff was called upon to remove the said structure within 15 days from the receipt of the order, failing which the same would be demolished without further intimation, entirely at the risk of the plaintiff. 3. On receipt of the said order and apprehending demolition, the plaintiff filed L.C.Suit No.531 of 2009 challenging the said notice issued under Section 351, dated 17-12-2008, as also the final order passed by the competent authority of the respondent-corporation dated 18-02-2009. In the said suit, the plaintiff moved a Notice of Motion for a temporary injunction restraining the defendant-corporation from acting pursuant to the notice, as also the said final order in the matter of demolition of the plaintiff's structure. The said Notice of Motion was moved for ad-interim reliefs on 06-03-2009. The learned Judge of the City Civil Court has refused to grant ad-interim relief on the ground that the plaintiff has failed 3 to make out a prima facie case for the grant of the discretionary relief. The Trial Court considered the documents produced by the plaintiff in support of its case. The Trial Court recorded a finding that none of the documents show the authorization of the structure or the existence of the structure prior to the datum line. The Trial Court also took into consideration the fact that the plot on which the plaintiff's structure was situated was a playground. 4. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, the learned counsel for the respondent-corporation has drawn my attention to the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2149 of 2008 dated 29-09-2008, as also an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Contempt Petition No.20/2009 in W.P.No.2149 of 2008 dated 26-02-2009. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the corporation that it is pursuant to the said orders that the respondent-corporation has taken action against the structures which were on the CTS No.811 which is reserved for playground. He further submitted that in all there were 14 structures on the said plot of land, out of which 13 structures have already been demolished after following the due process of law and it is only the plaintiff's structure which has remained to be demolished. 5. Considering the fact that the suit plot CTS No.811 is 4 reserved for a playground, as also the background in which the action has been initiated by the respondent-corporation in respect of the plaintiff's structure, as also considering the material which the plaintiff has produced at the ad-interim stage, in my view, there is no substance in the appeal and therefore, no interference is called for with the impugned order. The Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 6. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant makes a request for expeditious hearing of the Notice of Motion pending in the City Civil Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the said request is rejected. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. )