1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2922 OF 2008 Shri Akil Ali Chand Ali ..Petitioner. V/s. Shri Basil N. Kazi. ..Respondent. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.2923 OF 2008 Shri Shaikh Chand Shaikh Jumma ..Petitioner. V/s. Shri Basil N. Kazi. ..Respondent. Mr.Sonali S. Bhagat i/b. Mr.Kasim Sheikh for petitioner. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : AUGUST 5, 2008. DATE : AUGUST 5, 2008. DATE : AUGUST 5, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. 2. I see no merit in the submission that the Appellate Court ought to have deferred the hearing of the Appeal, which arose from the decision in RCS No.361 of 2002. I am in agreement with the opinion recorded by the Court below that the issue decided in the said suit was whether the Suit structure was dangerous. Indeed, the notice issued under section 2 264, which is challenged in RCS No. 353 of 2005 may incidentally involve the same question. But the fact remains that the issue as to whether the suit structure is a dangerous structure has already been answered in RCS No. 361 of 2002. The grievance of the Petitioner that the notice under Section 264 of the Act issued by the Corporation was malafide can be tested independently in the pending suit RCS No.353 of 2005. 3. Insofar as the question of fact as to whether the suit structure is dangerous has already been answered by one court after full-fledged trial. The Appeal Court can proceed to decide the said issue one way or the other irrespective of the pendency of RCS No.353 of 2005, which challenges the notice under section 264 issued by the Corporation. Suffice it to observe that no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction is warranted. Hence dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)