:1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.292 OF 1994 Ferdinant Aloysuis F. Miranda. ..Appellant. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Bombay and anr. ..Respondents. Dr. Miss. Kamal N. Velankar for the Appellant. Mr. J.J. Xavier for the B.M.C. CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J. DATE : 28th April,2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This is the first appeal filed by Ferdinant Aloysuis F. Miranda (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant" ) against the Municipal Corporation Greater Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the "Respondent") seeking to quash and set aside the order dated 2.3.1994 passed by the City Civil Court disposing of the L.C.Suit No.6655 of 1993. 2. It is the case of the appellant that he was erecting cement posts and barbed wire fencing when the alleged notice came to be issued by the Municipal Corporation and therefore, he filed L.C.Suit No.6655 of 1993 challenging the said notice under Section 354A of the B.P.M.C.Act. From the Roznama of the said suit, it appears that on 28.10.1993 the trial court observed that the work pertaining to the fitting of cement posts and barbed wire fencing was not pacca construction. :2: The Court accepted the undertaking given by the appellant that the appellant would not carry out any pacca construction without the permission of the B.M.C. and on such undertaking the trial court granted stay against the said notice. The net result was that the appellant put up prefabricated cement posts and barbed wire fencing which were the construction stopped by the B.M.C. In the circumstances, suit came up for further hearing on 2.3.1994 and the court disposed off the suit by reserving the right of the B.M.C. to take action under Section-351 of the Act. In my view, no fault can be found in the impugned order. The construction which was a subject matter of the notice was effected and according to the appellant the the work of erection of the fencing is now complete. Needless to say that the B.M.C. has power to take action under Section 351 if it can be shown that the erection of such fencing is not according with law. In the circumstances, appeal is dismissed. The right of the B.M.C. to proceed in accordance with law if they so desire stands confirmed. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed off. (R. S.MOHITE, J.)