1 SA 507.2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 507 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. K.N.Lokhande, Advocate for the appellant. ............................... CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 15/12/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is defendant’s Second Appeal. 2. The present respondent had filed Suit for damages claiming Rs. 2,00,000/-. The trial Court partly decreed the Suit to the extent of Rs. 42,433/-. The defendant preferred Appeal. The appellate Court allowed the Appeal and granted compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards mental agony. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant is in present Second Appeal before this Court. 3. Mr. K.N.Lokhande, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had followed due procedure of law and thereafter had 2 SA 507.2010 demolished the wall which was illegally constructed. The learned counsel further contended that when no actual loss has been caused as has been held by the trial Court, then no amount of compensation could be awarded for mental agony as alleged, is not proved. The circumstances are also not on record. The learned counsel further contended that the appellant is a public body and the appellant does not have any animus against the respondent. On that count, damages could not have been awarded. 4. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the Judgment. 5. The lower appellate Court has held that the plaintiff could not prove the actual loss and as such has not awarded damages for the construction which has been demolished. But, both the Courts have concurrently held that the appellant has not scrupulously followed the procedure as has been laid down under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act. On account of violation of legal rights, the damages are awarded. The lower appellate Court has awarded modest sum of Rs. 10,000/-. 6. In that light of the matter, the Second Appeal does not involve any substantial question of law and as such is dismissed, however with no order as to costs. 3 SA 507.2010 7. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is disposed of. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE knp/SA 507.2010