1 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1519 OF 2001 Smt. Ramma Arvind Nadkarni … Petitioner. Versus The Bombay Municipal Corporation & Anr. … Respondents. Ms. Jai Kanade i/b Mr. G.S. Godbole for the Petitioner. Ms. S.M. Modle for the Respondent No.1. Mr. P.G. Lad, for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & R. G. KETKAR, JJ. DATED: 1st October, 2009 P.C.: 1 By this petition, the petitioner challenges the attachment warrant issued by the Corporation for non- payment of property taxes and other taxes. Admitted position is that the notice was issued for fixation of ratable value of the property. Objections were called. Petitioner raised the 2 objections. Those objections were decided by order dated 28-3-2000. Against that order Appeal has been preferred in the Small Causes Court in August, 2000. The case of the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of section 203 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act attachment warrant could not have been issued as the Petitioner’s Appeal was pending before the Small Causes Court. 2 We asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to show us a statement made in the petition that before attachment warrant was issued on 08.01.2001, Corporation was served with the notice of Appeal which was filed by the petitioner in the Small Causes Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is not in a position to point out the same. 3 In our opinion, mere filing of the appeal before the Small Causes Court Courts will not enable the Petitioner to say that the Corporation could not have issued warrant of attachment. The Petitioner will have to show that he has served the Corporation with the Notice of the Appeal. In our 3 opinion, in the absence of a statement made in the petition that before 08.01.2001 the Corporation was served with the Notice of Appeal. No fault can be found with the action of the Corporation in issuing the attachment warrant. 4 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is an interim order made in this petition restraining the Corporation from acting on the attachment warrant, that interim order should be continued for a period of four weeks. In our opinion, the interim order cannot be continued. According to the petitioner, in view of the provisions of section 217 (2) (d) of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, as his appeal is before the Small Causes Court and as he has deposited the tax demanded in the Small Causes Court, the Corporation should not go ahead. If according to the petitioner he has deposited taxes in Small Causes Court, then there is no question of the Corporation going ahead with the attachment warrant. On the contrary, if the amount of tax is not deposited in the Small Causes Court, then the Corporation will be justified in taking further action in relation to attachment warrant. 4 5 We find no substance in the petition. Petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. Rule discharged with no orders as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J) (R.G. KETKAR, J)