1 FA : 1790-1788/2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.1790 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4685 OF 2008 Shri Allan Joseph Gomes & .... Appellants Another Vs. Shri Eustace James Gomes .... Respondents & Ors. Mr. P.J. Thorat i/by Mr. R.A. Thorat, Advocate for appellants. Ms. Sunita Poddar i/by M.Y. Sayani, Advocate for respondent no.1. WITH FIRST APPEAL NO.1788 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4677 OF 2008 & CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4678 OF 2008 Natheline Peter Gomes & Ors..... Appellants Vs. Shri Eustace James Gomes .... Respondents & Ors. Mr. Y.K. Tiwari & Dipali Deshmukh i/by K.P. Tiwari & Co. for appellants. Ms. Sunita Poddar i/by M.Y. Sayani, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mr. P.J. Thorat i/by Mr. R.A. Thorat, Advocate for resp. nos. 2 & 3 2 FA : 1790-1788/2008 Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 26th April, 2011 P.C. 1. Counsel for both the sides agree that these First Appeals can be disposed of by a small clarification as regards paragraph 2 of the operative part of the impugned judgment and order. Paragraph 2 directs defendant no.3 i.e. Mumbai Municipal Corporation to remove all encroachments namely stalls, unauthorised constructions, water tanks etc. from the suit site. It is clarified that the Corporation while complying with the impugned judgment and decree is required to follow due process of law for removing the unauthorised constructions. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 states that the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has already issued notices under Section 351 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act in respect of some of the structures. 2. Mr. Tiwari seeks further clarification that in the event of the due process of law followed by respondent no.3 going against him, his clients are at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in a court of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no such clarifications are required to be given. ( SMT.R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)