= 1 = IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1016 OF 2007 W I T H CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1387 OF 2007 IN APPEAL FROM ORDER NO. 1016 OF 2007 Habibullah C. Manikar .......Appellant Verus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay ........Respondents Mr.B.P.Shukla, adv.for appellant. Mrs.Geeta Joglekar, adv. for B.M.C./respondent. Coram: Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Dated : 18 th September, 2008. P.C. : 1. This Appeal from Order is preferred against the order dated 28th November, 2006 by which an application for interim reliefs is rejected by the Bombay City Civil court. 2. The applicant filed a suit for an injunction simplicitor to restrain Mumbai Municipal Corporation from demolishing the suit premises without = 2 = following due process of law. The premises described at para-1 of the plaint are a structure admeasuring 10' x 20' made up of patra wall and A.C.Sheet roof situated at 4/7, Subhadrabai Chawl, Opp.Bhangiwada, Shraddanand Road, Vileparle (E), Mumbai-57. The appellant alleges that on 12th September, 2007 one Mr.Vidate, Sub-Engineer of the respondent-corporation visited the suit premises and threatened to demolish the same. The respondent has filed its Written Statement stating that the Corporation had demolished the structure of the appellant on 24th August, 2007 after following due process of law. Thereafter, the appellant has constructed a new structure and sought protection from demolition from the court. The Written Statement reveals that pursuant to a complaint made by a local councillor, Mr.Vidhate, Sub-Engineer and Mr.Potul, Junior Engineer visited the site on 24th July, 2007 and found that the appellant was carrying out unauthorized construction of a room by erecting plastic shed on the existing compound wall admeasuring 15' x 20' height 7 ' at Subdhrabai Chawl. The respondent-corporation immediately issued stop-work notice under Section 354A of the MMC Act bearing no. ACKE/JEBX/354A/BF dated 24th July, 2007 to the appellant and thereafter demolished the structure with the help of police on 22nd August, 23007. Mr.Shukla, the learned counsel for the appellant denies that the structure was demolished at any point of time by the corporation. According to him, what was demolished by the respondent- corporation was merely a plastic shed extension. = 3 = 3. I have perused the impugned order which takes into consideration, the contentions of both the sides and rejects the application for interim reliefs. Besides, the allegations and threats made at para-7 of the plaint are denied by the respondents, there is nothing to substantiate that any officer had visited the suit premises on 12th September, 2007 threatening to demolish the suit premises. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the Appeal from Order. Hence, the same is dismissed in limine. 4. With the dismissal of the Appeal from Order, the Civil Application does not survive. The same is accordingly disposed off. 5. On the application of Mr.Shukla, it is clarified that the Bombay City Civil Court will decide the suit on its own merits uninfluenced by the observations made in this order. [Smt.R.P.SondurBaldota, J] = 4 =