IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.611 OF 2005 IN L.C.SUIT NO.2007 OF 2005 Shri Mohammedbhai Nanabhai Bhartoo ..Appellant Versus The Municipal Corporation of Grater Mumbai & Anr. ..Respondents Shri R.A.Thorat with Mr.Pramod Patil for the Appellants Mr.M.Chhabria for the Respondent no.2. Shri J.J.Xavier for the Respondent no.1. CORAM: A.S.OKA,J.(VACATION JUDGE) DATED: 10TH MAY, 2005 P.C.: 1. Heard the Advocates appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that in respect of suit structure, a notice under section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 was issued in the year 1988 and after considering the reply and documents filed by the Appellant , an order was passed on 11th February, 1989 by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner directing removal of the suit structure. The appellant filed a Civil Suit in which Notice of Motion was taken out for protecting the structure. Notice of Motion was dismissed. An appeal from order was preferred by the Appellants in this Court. On 17th April, 1989, the appeal from order was dismissed. It is also not in dispute that thereafter, there - 2 - was no prohibitory order against the Municipal Corporation for protection of the suit structure. On 13th January, 2004, the Municipal Corporation again issued a notice under section 351 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1881. The said notice was in respect of same structure. On the basis of said notice, an order of demolition was passed. A fresh suit was filed by the Appellant in which by impugned judgment and order, the prayer for grant of ad-interim relief has been refused. 2. Shri Thorat appearing for the Appellants submitted that in the order passed on the Notice of Motion taken out by the Appellant in the earlier Suit, there is a reference to very old documents pertaining to the suit structure. He submitted that for a period of 15 years, the suit structure was not demolished. And therefore, in the present Notice of Motion, the Learned Trial Judge ought to have protected the Appellant. 3. In view of admitted position, in respect of suit structure the due process - 3 - of Law under section 351 of Bombay Municipal Corporation Act,1881 was completed way back in the year 1989 and in the earlier suit filed in the year 1989 the Trial Court and this Court declined to protect suit structure by grant of interim relief. Therefore, no case is made out for granting discretionary and equitable relief in the present notice of motion. Therefore, in my view, the Learned Trial Judge was right in refusing to grant an ad-interim injunction. 4. There is no merit in the Appeal.The Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. At this stage, Shri Thorat appearing for the Appellants states that structure may be protected for a reasonable time as he wants to take further steps in the matter. The said request is opposed by the Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents. Considering the fact that the structure is not demolished for such a long time, parties will maintain Status-quo as of today for a period of 8 weeks from today.