1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPEAL FROM ORDER NO.146 OF 2009 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.172 OF 2009 Mr.Pandurang Govind Vengulekar : Appellant. Versus The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ors. : Respondents. Shri L K Tripathi for the Appellant. Smt. K K Soraan for the Respondent/BMC. CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 17, 2009 P.C. 1. This Appeal takes exception to the order dated 27th January 2009 by which order the ad-interim reliefs have been refused to the Appellant/Plaintiff. 2. The Appellant/Plaintiff has filed S C Suit No.222 of 2009 impugning the notice dated 01/08/2008 issued by the Respondent- 2 Corporation. The said notice states that the Appellant/Plaintiff has put up a staircase in the open space of the chawl and on account of which the water pipeline of the said chawl is affected. The said notice, therefore, calls upon the Plaintiff to remove the said staircase within seven days and co-operate with the residents of the said chawl. The said notice has been replied to by the Plaintiff. 3. Thereafter by another Notice the Plaintiff was called upon to submit the documents in respect of the said staircase. The Plaintiff again replied to the said notice. The Plaintiff thereafter filed the said suit in which, he filed the Notice of Motion for injunction. The trial Court, by the impugned order, has rejected the ad-interim reliefs sought for by the Plaintiff. The said ad-interim relief has been rejected on the ground that there are no documents filed with the Plaint to indicate that the staircase in question has been constructed authorisedly. The trial Court was also of the view that the Respondent-Corporation was entitled to take action in terms of the said notice. 3 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation. I have also perused the documents submitted by the Plaintiff. There is not a single document on record to indicate that the staircase in question is authorized and has been constructed with the permission of the Respondent-Corporation. In my view, therefore, the order passed by the trial Court dated 27th January 2009 which is impugned in the above Appeal cannot be faulted with. The above Appeal from Order is accordingly dismissed. 5. However, the Corporation not to take precepitative action against the said staircase for a period of one week from date i.e up to 24th February 2009. 6. In view of the dismissal of the above Appeal from Order, the Civil Application No.172 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. 4 [R.M.SAVANT, J]