1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.322 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 387 OF 2009 Dipchand Jivraj Goda .....Appellant Versus Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. .....Respondents. Mr. D. D. Belosey, Advocate for the Appellant. Smt. K. K. Soraan, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. S. G. Anney, Senior Counsel with Mr. M. B. Shirsat, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 13th JULY, 2009. P.C.: Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. The Appellant is the original plaintiff. He filed L.C.Suit against Respondents for permanent injunction restraining the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 from amalgamating two flats bearing nos. 11 & 12. He also filed notice of motion at Exhibit “4” for temporary injunction in terms of permanent injunction. The learned Trial Judge by an order dated 29th January, 2009 impugned in the present Appeal from Order, dismissed the said notice of motion. 3. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are mother and son. There is no dispute that they are occupants of flat nos.11 & 12 on the 2nd floor of the building known as Muni Darshan, Jagdusa Nagar, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai – 400 086. The Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 want to amalgamate flat nos.11 and 12. For that purpose they applied for permission from the 2 Respondent No.1 – Municipal Corporation and the Respondent No.1 by their order/letter dated 4th December, 2008 granted them permission to amalgamate the said two flats subject to certain conditions. 4. The Respondent No.1-Municipal Corporation has filed affidavit in the aforesaid Appeal from Order. In paragraph no.7, a statement is stated that Respondent Nos.2 & 3 through their Architect filed a proposal on 2nd March, 2008 under section 342 of the MMC Act for amalgamation of flat nos. 11 & 12. In paragraph no.8, it is stated that the Respondent No.4-Society submitted NOC with the proposal. However, subsequently it was withdrawn only on 20th June, 2008. The paragraph no.10 refers to Structural Engineer’s report certifying structural stability of the said amalgamation as safe and stable. 5. The learned Trial Judge also in paragraph no.7 of the impugned order found that the said work of amalgamation of flat nos. 11 & 12 is being carried out after obtaining necessary permission from the MMC and therefore, the said work cannot be termed as unauthorized or illegal. The learned Trial Judge also found that the amalgamation had already started one and half months back and therefore, if the same is discontinued, inconvenience will be caused to the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. 6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Respondent No.1, subsequent to the impugned order issued notice on 6th February, 2009 to the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 under section 354 A of the MMC Act. Mr. Anney, learned Senior Counsel, however, submits that this notice is issued subsequent to passing of the impugned order and they are taking appropriate action, if necessary, to challenge the said notice, in the Court of competent jurisdiction. Fact remains that this notice is not the subject matter of the present suit. 7. Taking over all circumstances into consideration, I do not find any error in the impugned order. The Appeal from Order is dismissed, accordingly. 3 8. In view of the disposal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.387 will not survive and therefore, the same is disposed of. Sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)