: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.88 OF 2009 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.1332 OF 2008 Ramkali Ajit Dube .. Petitioner V/s. Jayraj Pathak, Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. P.M. Havnur for the Petitioner. Mr. A.C. Singh for the Respondents. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 5 TH MARCH, 2010. P.C.: 1. The Contempt Petition has been filed contending that there is a breach of the order dated 23rd January, 2009 passed by this Court. By this order passed in Appeal from Order No.1332 of 2008, this Court has considered the grievance of the petitioner that the city Civil Court, Bombay, had wrongly refused an ad-interim injunction in respect of the suit structure. The petitioner was issued a notice under Section 314 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act on 4th December, 2008, as his : 2 : structure fell within the road line. While disposing of the Appeal from Order, this Court has recorded a statement made on behalf of the respondent-Municipal Corporation that all adjacent societies had surrendered a portion of the land in their possession for construction of the road and that the construction of the road has been completed except the part where the wall of the society touched the suit structure. The learned Judge while disposing of the Appeal from Order has recorded a statement made on behalf of the respondent-Municipal Corporation that the respondent-Municipal Corporation will commence the remaining work of removing the compound wall and the gate of the society which is touching the suit structure. Accordingly, this Court accepted the submission of the Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner would file an undertaking that, the moment the wall and the gate of the society touching the suit structure were removed by the respondent-Municipal Corporation, the appellant would remove the suit structure at his own costs within a period of one week. : 3 : 2. It appears that the wall and the gate have been removed and while doing so, the suit structure which was touching the wall and the gate has been demolished. In my opinion, there is no contempt committed by the respondent-Municipal Corporation. The structure was, prima facie, an illegal structure and, therefore, no interim relief was granted in favour of the appellant restraining the respondent-Municipal Corporation from demolishing the structure. 2. The Contempt Petition is dismissed.