:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.417 OF 2007 PETITION NO.417 OF 2007 PETITION NO.417 OF 2007 Mr. Kaveshwar Chandra Kapoor ..Petitioner V/s Municipal Corporation for Gr. Mumbai ..Respondents. Mr.C.K. Tripathi for the petitioner None for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : A.A. SAYED, J. A.A. SAYED, J. A.A. SAYED, J. DATE DATE DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 11TH FEBRUARY, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. By this petition the petitioner challenges an order dated 5th September, 2006 passed by the City Civil Court at Greater Mumbai dismissing the Notice of Motion No. 4735 of 2005 in L.C. Suit No. 3035 of 2005, wherein the petitioner had prayed that the respondent Nos. 2,3,4 and 5 be punished for disobeying the order of this Hon’ble Court and for reconstruction of the premises demolished by the respondents Nos. 2,3,4 and 5. The notice of motion had been filed as according to the petitioner, the respondents demolished part of the shop No. 4 in violation of the order dated 5th September,2005 of :2: this court in A.O.No.791 of 2005. Whilst disposing of the Appeal against the order of rejection of prayer of ad-interim reliefs by the City Civil Court, this Court has passed an order, the operative part of which is reproduced hereunder - "The appeal is disposed of by directing expeditious hearing of the pending Notice of Motion in L.C. Suit No. 3035 of 2005 and it is made clear that there is no protection to the structure covered by the notice dated 4th February, 2005 at the same time Shop No.4 in Ellora building need not be disturbed to the extent it is located with the building premises." 3. I have perused the material on record and the impugned order of the City Civil Court. The learned Judge in impugned order in para 8 has observed that he had directed the plaintiff to produce photographs and that the photographs show that the demolished structure was not part of the shop No.4. and it was an extension to the backside shop. It is to be noted that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 who have allegedly breached the order dated 05.09.2005, are officials of the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and they would have no personal interest as such in the matter. :3: 4. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order so as to call for interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition stands dismissed. 5. It is made clear that the observations in this order as well as the impugned order will not come in the way of the petitioner in the pending suit wherein according to the learned Counsel, the petitioner has sought an order of reconstruction after amendment has been granted to him and the said suit will be decided on its own merits. ( A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.) A.A. SAYED, J.)